BY 

S.  SHELL 


"Let  every  Catholic  give  one-tenth  the  interest, 
enthusiasm  and  support  to  Social  Reform  that  the  typical 
Comrade  gives  to  Socialism,  and  the  solution  of  the  Social 
Problem  will  be  a  mere  matter  of  time." 


OUR  SUNDAY  VISITOR  PRESS 
Huntington,  Indiana 


^.|..|otl,t.»tM^M^Mt.>t'»:"^<'»^ia''l''^'^''^'|i>I"l'^«^'^'a'^■>^'^■^4''t'4i»'^^"l^» 


BY 

S.  SHELL 


**Let  every  Catholic  give  one-tenth  the  interest, 
enthusiasm  and  support  to  Social  Reform  that  the  typical 
Comrade  gives  to  Socialism,  and  the  solution  of  the  Social 
Problem  will  be  a  mere  matter  of  time." 


OUR  SUNDAY  VISITOR  PRESS 
Huntington,  Indiana 


4> »  »  »  ♦  <■ »  <■      »t.  >!■  >t'  'I'   't'  'I'  >t'  't'   'I'        ■!  »|.«|«il..!>»l.>|>»t"l'»4'»l'»l'»»l'a.4..i,4.»|.^.|i.|.4.4i.fr 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Page 


L   What  Socialism  Is  Not, 

The  Climax  Building  Concern — Government  Ownership  of  Public  Utilities 

—Social  Reform— A  Wolf  in  Sheep's  Clothes   6 

II.   Socialism  Defined, 

Socialism  as  an  Economic  System — A  New  Basis — Highway  Robbers  of 

Capitalism — Frightful  Waste — Architects  at  Loggerheads   7 

III.   Contractors  Non-plussed. 

Little  Details — Getting  Control — Concentration  of  Wealth  and  Industries 
— Purchase  —  Confiscation  —  Revolution   10 

IV.   Problem  of  the  Superintendent. 

Socialism  Inevitable? — Working-plan — One  Management  Throughout — A 
Tremendous  Problem — Height  of  Folly — Postoffice — Army  of  Unpro- 
ductive Laborers   13 

V.   Problems  of  the  Assistant  Superintendents. 

Present  Conditions  Intolerable — Decapitation:  a  Cure  for  Headache — 
Regulating  Production — Concentration  of  Dissatisfaction — ^Absolute 
Necessity  of  Accurate  Estimates— An  Arithmetical  Problem — ^Socialist 
Waste — A  Miracle   16 

VI.   Problems  of  the  Foreman. 

A  Catchy  Question — Personal  Interest — A  Beautiful  Dream — Assigning 
Jobs — Dirty  Work — Automatic  Adjustment — Whole  Tendency  Down- 
ward and  Backward   19 

VII.   Problems  of  the  Paymaster. 

Foolish  Questions — Labor-Check — Remuneration  of  Labor — Legalized 
Robbery — Labor-Product — Oh!  so  Simple — Labor  the  Only  Source 
of  Wealth   21 


VIII.   Socialism  and  Liberty  in  the  Light  of  History. 


Next  Step  in  the  Evolution  of  Human  Society — A  New  Argument — Over 
One  Hundred  Socialist  Experiments  Failures— Blind  Faith— Straight- 
jacket  of  Socialism — Irresponsible  Democracy — Reign  of  Terror — New 
Australia — History  and  Experience   24 

IX.   Socialism  and  Liberty  in  the  Light  of  Theory. 

Absolutistic  Grovernment — Inefficiency  and  Graft  in  Government  Admin- 
istration— Well  Cared-for  Slaves — Greed  and  Selfishness — Finer  In- 
stincts—Who Join?— Who  Shun  the  Socialist  Party?   26 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM, 


I 


X.   Socialism  and  Liberty  in  the  Light  of 
Present  Day  Experience. 

Review  of  Socialist  Leaders — Gathering  Grapes  of  Thorns — Leaving  the 
Clouds  of  Theory  and  Speculation — Socialist  Wire  Pulling — Socialist 
Referendums — Socialist  Steam  Roller  and  Bossism — Boards  of  Arbi- 
tration— Freedom  of  Press — Legalized  Ferocity   28 

XL   Socialism  and  the  Family. 

Exaggerations — Ignorance  and  Gullibility  of  the  Comrades — Free  Lust — 

Socialist  Authorities — Garbled  Quotations? — John  Spargo's  Methods..  31 

XIL   American  Socialists  and  Free  Love. 

Attitude  of  Socialist  Party — American  Socialist  Writers — Morris  Hillquit's 
.Strict  Monogamy — ^Sexual  Promiscuity — "By  Their  Fruits  You  Shall 
Know  Them" — A  Revoltingly  Immoral  Movement — Responsibility  of 
the  Individual   34 


XIII.   Socialism  and  Religion. 

Why  Catholics  Oppose  Socialism — Is  Socialism  Merely  an  Economic 
System? — Spargo's  Deceptive  Parallel — The  Last  Appeal — History  of 
the  Plank  on  Religion — Mendacity  and  Hypocrisy — Policy  and  Ex- 
pediency vs.  Truth  and  Honesty — Q.  E.  D   37 

XIV.   The  Catholic  Church  and  the  Toilers. 

Why  Is  a  Socialist? — Catholics  Lead  in  the  Fight  Against  Socialism — 
Socialism  the  Laborer's  Enemy — Disrupts  His  Unions — Robs  His 
Money — Opposes  His  Interests — Debases  His  Nature — Positive  Work 
of  the  Church  for  the  Laborer — His  Greatest  Benefactor.   40 

XV.   Specific  Application  of  Catholic  Principles. 

Social  Problem  Defined — Catholic  Principles  and  Production — Economy 
and  Efficiency — The  Goal — Catholic  Principles  and  Distribution — 
Justice  and  Charity — Protecting  the  Laborer — Curbing  the  Power  of 
the  Rich — Catholic  Social  Activities — Social  Sense — School — Plat- 
form— Press — Catholic  Federation — Individual  Responsibility   42 


Nihil  Obstat 

RT.  REV.  MON.  OECHTERING,  V.  G. 

Censor 

IMPRIMATUR 

^  HERMAN  J.  ALERDING 

Bishop  of  Fort  Wayne 


PREFACE. 


The  dialog  on  Socialism  which  is  Herewith  submitted 
to  the  reader,  first  appeared  in  "Our  Sunday  Visitor."  It 
contains  nothing  new  or  startling,  btit  much  that  is  crude 
and  imperfect  and  would,  therefore,  not  have  been  given 
a  permanent  form  had  not  the  writer  been  urged  thereto 
by  the  Reverend  Editor  of  "Our  Sunday  Visitor"  and  by 
many  readers,  both  clerical  and  lay. 

The  writer  freely  acknowledges  his  indebtedness  to 
existing  works  on  Socialism  and  Social  Reform,  particu- 
larly to  the  writings  of  Rev.  Victor  Cathrein,  S.  J.,  Rev. 
John  A.  Ryan,  D.  D.,  John  Graham  Brooks,  Richard  Ely, 
etc.  He  also  wishes  to  express  his  gratitude  to  the  many 
readers  of  "Our  Sunday  Visitor"  who  assisted  him  with 
their  encouraging  words  and  valuable  suggestions,  especi- 
ally to  the  Reverend  Pastor  of  St.  Mary's,  Granville,  New 
York,  Rev.  M.  L.  Merns.  S.  SHELL. 


Jones  anb  ^mitf)  J^iscuss 

1. 

What  Socialism  Is  Not. 

The  Climax  Building  Concern — Government  Ownership  of  Public  Utilities — 
Social  Reform — A  Wolf  in  Sheep's  Clothes. 

SOCIALIST. — Jones,  yqu're  a  fool,  the  biggest  fool  on  the  face  of  the 
earth.  By  voting  a  capitalist  ticket,  the  Republican  or  Democratic  ticket, 
you're  vot.ng  for  capitalism  and  that  means  you're  voting  for  the  exploita- 
tion of  the  working  class;  you're  voting  for  the  continuance  of  the  unspeak- 
able misery  and  suffering  *  *  * 

CATHOLIC. — Just  a  minute.  Smith.  I've  heard  that  sort  of  talk  a 
good  many  times.  Let  me  give  you  my  position  in  the  matter.  I've  got  a 
house  down  there  on  Sixth  street,  and  I'm  not  altogether  satisfied  with 
it.  It's  too  cold  in  winter  and  too  hot  in  summer;  the  kitchen  is  too  small, 
the  cellar  loo  low,  there's  no  bath-room  in  it,  and  so  on.  Now  suppose  some 
fine  day  a  gentleman  should  come  along  and  say  to  me:  "Mr.  Jones,  I 
understand  you're  dissatisfied  with  your  house.  Now,  I  have  a  proposition 
for  you.  I  represent  the  Climax  Building  Concern,  and  my  firm  is  willing 
to  tear  down  your  shack,  that's  really  what  your  "house"  is,  and  replace 
it  with  a  home  that  is  better  equipped  and  arranged  than  any  in  the  city. 
All  we  ask  of  you,  is  to  lend  us  a  little  help  in  pulling  down  your  shanty." 
Smith,  what  would  you  advise  me  to  do  under  those  circumstances? 

SOCIALIST. — Jones,  I  understand  what  you're  driving  at.  That 
Climax  Building  Concern  stands  for  the  Socialist  party.  I'm  the  repre- 
sentative. The  shack  you're  living  in  is  capitalism  and  when  I  ask  you  to 
vote  the  Socialist  ticket,  I  am  asking  you  to  help  us  pull  down  your  shanty 
and  in  return  we  promise  to  build  the  best  arranged  and  equipped  home  in 
history,  that  is,  the  Cooperative  Commonwealth.    Did  I  get  you? 

CATHOLIC. — Perfectly.    But  now,  how  about  your  advice? 

SOCIALIST. — Very  simple.  Investigate  the  proposition,  Jones.  In- 
vestigate! 

CATHOLIC. — You  wouldn't  think  it  strange  if  I  were  a  little  suspicious, 
if  I  thought  of  a  gold  brick,  if  I  were  very  cautious,  would  you? 

SOCIALIST. — Not  at  all.  We  Socialists  want  you  to  consider  our 
proposition  very  carefully;  we  want  you  to  examine  it  very  closely,  and 
only  after  you  are  satisfied  that  Socialism  is  all  we  claim  it  to  be,  do  we 
/  want  you  to  join  our  ranks,  not  a  minute  sooner.  I  am  here  to  help  you 
in  your  investigation. 

CATHOLIC. — All  right.  Smith.    It  won't  hurt  to  investigate.  Now, 


6 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


will  you  please  tell  me,  just  in  a  general  sort  of  a  way,  what  that  new  home 
of  mine  is  going  to  look  like?   What  do  you  mean  by  Socialism? 

SOCIALIST. — Jones,  put  it  here!  Tm  glad  to  find  you  so  fair-minded. 
And  now  for  your  question.  By  Socialism  I  mean  municipal  ownership  of 
water-works,  lighting  systems,  gas  and  electric,  of  the  street  car  lines;  I 
mean  government  ownership  of  the  railroads,  telegraph  and  telephone  lines 
and  of  the  express  services. 

CATHOLIC. — Now,  Smith,  don't  try  to  slip  one  over  on  me  like  that. 
You  make  me  think  of  the  rooster  that  appropriated  the  peacock's  feathers. 
Government  ownership  of  public  utilities  was  known  and  advocated  before 
your  party  ever  came  into  existence  and  is  no  more  Socialistic  than  eating 
or  drinking.  When  Lueger  and  his  Catholic  party  obtained  a  majority  In 
the  city  council  of  Vienna  they  municipalized  the  lighting  and  traction 
systems  and  built  a  city  slaughter  house. 

SOCIALIST. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  Socialist  party  does  not 
stand  for  those  measures  I  mentioned? 

CATHOLIC. — Not  at  all.  What  I  wish  to  say  and  what  I  mean  to 
insist  on  is  this,  that  they  are  not  distinctively  Socialistic,  that  they  are  not 
Socialism.  They  are  merely  a  bait  to  attract  ai^d  inveigle  the  workmen  into 
your  party.  And,  believe  me.  Smith,  you  Socialists  have  a  big  variety  and 
a  big  supply  of  bait.  I'll  only  give  a  few  samples:  Socialism  means 
economic  justice;  it  stands  for  a  shorter  working  day  and  a  bigger  pay 
envelope,  for  clean  politics,  for  sanitary  factories,  mills  and  workshops, 
for  the  abolition  of  child-labor;  it  stands  for  decent  and  comfortable 
homes.     ♦    ♦  ♦ 

SOCIALIST.— And  so  it  does!  It  stands  for  all  those  things.  What 
is  there  wrong  in  telling  that  to  the  workers? 

CATHOLIC. — Smith,  let  me  tell  you  a  story.  A  Protestant  minister 
wa»  sent  by  a  missionary  society  to  a  village  in  the  Philippine  Islands  to 
preach  the  "unadulterated  gospel"  to  the  poor  benighted  Catholic  natives. 
The  pastor  of  the  parish  had  been  killed  in  the  revolution  and,  in  conse- 
quence, the  people  were  without  a  shepherd.  When  the  minister  arrived 
in  their  midst  they  asked  him  what  religion  he  professed.  "I  profess  and 
teach,"  he  answered,  "the  only  true  religion — the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ. 
I  teach  that  there  is  one  God,  the  Creator  of  the  universe.  I  teach  all  that 
is  contained  in  the  Holy  Bible,  the  ten  commandments,  just  those  things, 
as  you  see,  which  you  believe."  The  simple  unsuspecting  people,  anxious 
to  obtain  the  ministrations  of  a  priest,  were  led  to  believe  that  the  preacher 
was  of  their  own  faith.  They  took  him  in,  put  the  church  and  parsonage 
at  his  disposal  and  flocked  together  from  all  sides  to  hear  the  word  of  God. 
At  first,  the  minister  dwelt  only  on  the  doctrines  common  to  Catholics  and 
Protestants,  but  gradually  he  poisoned  the  hearts  and  minds  of  his  hearers 
with  Protestant  prejudices,  and  succeeded  so  well  that  the  majority  were 
lost  completely  to  the  old  faith.  Smith,  tell  me  candidly,  what  do  you 
think  of  such  tactics? 


JONES  AND  SMITH  Discuss  SOCIALISM. 


7 


SOCIALIST.— Why,  that  minister  was  a  wolf  in  sheep's  clothes.  I 

condemn  those  tactics  absolutely. 

CATHOLIC— Well,  my  good  man,  I*m  afraid  you'll  have  to  condemn 
a  large  number  of  your  comrades;  you'll  have  to  condemn  yourself.  Con- 
sciously or  unconsciously,  you  Socialists  employ  the  very  same,  frequently 
much  worse,  tactics.  You  hold  back  from  the  unsuspecting  inquirer  every, 
feature  of  your  system  that  might  shock  his  Christian  sense  of  ju&tice  and 
morality  and  make  him  believe  that  Socialism  means  certain  reform 
measures  which  are  not  distinctively  Socialistic,  which  your  party  in  Germany 
for  a  long  time  opposed  with  tooth  and  nail.  And  when  you  finally  succeed 
in  trapping  your  victim,  by  fair  means  or  foul,  you  inoculate  him  with  the 
poison  of  discontent,  infidelity  and  hatred  of  religion.  And  when  the  poison 
has  taken  effect,  he  is  ready  to  be  instructed  in  the  real  meaning  of 
Socialism.    Smith,  I've  seen  this  done  hundreds  of  times. 


II-  "   

Socialism  Defined. 

Socialism   as  an   Economic   System — A   New   Basis — Highway   Robbers  of 
Capitalism — Frightful  Waste — Architects  at  Loggerheads. 

SOCIALIST. — Jones,  you're  judging  us  altogether  too  harshly.  There  is 
absolutely  no  reason  why  we  Socialists  should  resort  to  those  wolf  tactics. 
Socialism  a  system  so  grand  and  so  noble  that  we  Comrades  can  glory  in 
every  one  of  its  principles,  and  in  all  its  aspirations  and  ideals. 

CATHOLIC. — Well,  then.  Smith,  why  in  the  name  of  honest  cammon 
sense  don't  you  Socialists  answer  our  question  candidly?  Why  do  you  say 
that  Socialism  means  government  ownership  of  public  utilities,  that  it  means 
social  reforms  such  as  the  eight-hour  working  day,  abolition  of  child  labor, 
liability  insurance,  old  age  pensions,  sanitary  workshops,  and  so  on,  when 
these  measures  are  not  Socialistic  at  all? 

SOCL\LIST. — Come  on,  Jones,  there  is  no  use  getting  excited.  I  see  now 
what  you're  after.  You  want  the  fundamental  principle,  the  central  dis- 
tinguishing idea  of  Socialism.  All  right.  Here  it  is:  common  ownership  of 
the  means  of  production  and  distribution. 

CATHOLIC. — This  definition  considers  Socialism  only  as  an  economic 
system.    Would  you  please  explain  your  definition? 

SOCIALIST. — Very  gladly.  Socialism  wants  the  people  at  large  to  own 
and  operate  the  means  of  production  and  distribution.  By  means  of  pro- 
duction we  understand  all  those  establishments  in  which  needful  things  are 
produced,  as  factories,  mills,  mines,  quarries,  farms,  etc.;  by  means  of 
distribution  we  understand  the  establishments  that  are  used  in  distributing 
needful  things,  such  as  railroads,  canals,  ships,  warehouses,  stores,  etc. 

CATHOLIC. — ^And  what  do  you  expect  from  such  an  arrangement? 

SOCIALIST. — Why,  the  solution  of  all  our  social  problems.    The  laborer 


.8 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


^ill  get  SL  square  deal;  he  will  receive  the  full  social  value  of  the  wealth  he 
oreates.  The  Collective  Commonwealth  will  do  away  with  the  unspeakable 
misery  and  suffering  of  the  working  class;  it  will  stamp  out  poverty,  slums, 
€hild-labor.  white  slavery,  unsanitary  living  and  working  conditions,  starva- 
tion wages,  in  a  word — all  the  wretchedness  to  which  over  one-half  of  us 
working  men  are  subject. 

CATHOLIC. — And  why  would  these  grand  results  follow? 

SOCIALIST. — Simply  because  all  our  industries  would  be  run  on  an 
altogether  different  basis.  Now  they  are  run  for  private  gain,  then  they 
will  be  run  for  the  common  good.  You  will  get  a  slight  idea  of  the  big  differ- 
•ence  if  you  compare  the  shoe  factory  in  which  you  are  working  with  the 
post-office.  The  shoe  factory  is  run  to  make  money  for  the  capitalist  and 
money  can  be  made  only  by  keeping  down  wages  and  keeping  up  the  price 
of  the  shoes.  You,  the  working  men,  are  fleeced  when  you  make  the  shoes 
and  you're  fleeced  again  when  you  buy  the  very  shoes  you  made.  Now  let 
me  take  you  over  to  the  post-office  and  show  you  how  that  is  run.  The 
government  is  not  in  business  to  make  money,  but  simply  and  solely  to  help 
the  people.  The  postmaster-general  is  not  continually  planning  how  to  raise 
the  rates  of  postage  and  lower  the  wages  of  his  employees,  but  he  is  plan- 
ning how  he  can  do  the  very  opposite.  And  he  succeeds  in  satisfying  his 
employees  on  the  one  hand  and  the  public  on  the  other,  just  because  he 
doesn't  have  to  pay  millions  of  dollars  tribute  to  the  highway  robbers  of 
Capitalism  and  other  millions  for  frightful  waste  connected  with  competition 
which  our  privately  owned  industries  must  pay. 

CATHOLIC. — I  see  the  big  difference  between  the  Socialist  idea  of  run- 
ning industries  and  the  one  according  to  which  they  are  run  now.  But  would 
you  kindly  explain  what  you  mean  by  those  highway  robbers  and  that  fright- 
ful waste? 

SOCIALIST. — We  Socialists  call  those  men  robbers  who  do  not  work, 
either  by  hand  or  brain,  for  the  money  they  get.  You  have  a  nicer  name  for 
that  class  of  people;  you  call  them  capitalists.  Well,  there  is  no  place  for 
such  dead-beats  in  the  Collective  Commonwealth.  We  will  tolerate  no  rob- 
bery, call  it  dividends,  profit,  rent  or  interest — ^^and  now  for  the  frightful 
waste.  When  you  take  up  your  magazine  at  home  and  see  those  hundreds 
of  advertisements,  do  you  ever  ask  yourself  who  pays  for  them?  Do  you 
know  that  a  single  soap  company  (Pears)  spends  close  to  $700,000  a  year 
for  advertising,  that  the  Postum  Cereal  Company  spends  a  million  dollars  a 
year  for  the  same  purpose?  These  two  instances  give  you  a  very  faint  idea 
of  the  enormous  sums  that  are  spent  each  year  by  private  industries  for 
advertising.  And  now  if  you  analyze  advertising  you  will  be  forced  to  admit 
that  it  represents  practically  a  sheer  waste  of  time,  energy  and  millions  upon 
millions  of  dollars.  In  the  Collective  Commonwealth  there  will  be  no  such 
waste,  because  there  will  be  only  one  company,  and  therefore  no  competition 
which  is  the  only  reason  why  firms  advertise. 

CATHOLIC. — I  must  admit  that  there  is  a  frightful  waste  in  connection 
with  advertising. 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


9 


SOCIALIST. — Well,  Jones,  there  are  other  causes  of  waste  in  our  present 
system  of  planless  production,  which  are  even  more  frightful.  Take  our 
army  of  commercial  travelers,  drummers,  agents  and  so  on,  take  the  upkeep 
of  competing  establishments,  one-half  of  which  could  produce  and  distribute 
all  the  products  we  need,  take  the  immeasurable  amounts  of  goods  produced 
in  excess  of  our  needs  which  remain  unsold  and  are  spoiled — what  a  shame- 
less, frightful  waste!  When  I  think  of  the  millions  upon  millions  of  dollars 
wasted  in  these  various  ways  each  year  and  remember  that  over  one-half 
of  our  working  people  do  not  even  get  a  living  wage,  Jones,  my  blood  begins 
to  boil.  Do  you  understand  now,  why  I  am  a  Socialist?  Do  you  under- 
stand now,  why  we  Socialists  want  to  put  an  end  to  the  present  capitalist 
system  with  its  robbery  and  waste,  and  why  we  want  to  introduce  the 
Collective  Commonwealth  with  its  justice  and  economy? 

CATHOLIC. — I  understand  you  thoroughly,  but  I  do  not  agree  with  you 
in  all  your  statements.  I  admit  our  working  class  must  bear  untold  misery, 
suffering  and  injustice,  but  I  do  not  believe  that  Socialism  is  the  remedy.  I 
cannot  allow  that  interest-taking  is  robbery,  nor  do  I  grant  that  the  waste 
you  refer  to  is  as  great  as  you  would  have  me  believe.  However,  we  can 
discuss  these  points  more  profitably  some  -other  time.  All  I  wish  to  do 
just  now  is  to  examine  the  rough  outline  you  gave  me  of  the  Collective 
Commonwealth  and  to  ask  you  a  few  questions. 

SOCIALIST. — You're  welcome  to  ask  any  questions  you  wish. 

CATHOLIC. — Very  well.  Do  you  want  the  government  to  own  ALL 
the  means  of  production  and  distribution? 

SOCIALIST.— Yes,  all  the  means. 

CATHOLIC. — But  isn't  it  true  that  a  large  percentage  of  present-day 
Socialists  do  not  agree  with  you  on  this  point?  Isn't  it  true  that  they  want 
to  socialise  only  the  *'large  scale  industries"  as  your  Indianapolis  program 
puts  it? 

SOCIALIST. — That's  true.  But  a  larger  percentage  of  Socialists  are 
opposed  to  such  an  arrangement.  Such  half  and  half  measures  are  more 
contemptible  than  the  present  organized  robbery  of  capitalism.  Such  a 
hybrid  Socialism  will  never  remedy  existing  evils  and  will  defeat  its  own 
purpose.  Give  an  inch  to  capitalism  and  it  will  widen  into  a  mile  before 
you  know  it. 

CATHOLIC. — And  then,  Smith,  isn't  it  true,  too,  that  many  Socialists 
want  to  socialise  private  property  too,  I  mean  houses,  furniture,  etc.? 

SOCIALIST. — Those  are  fools,  those  aren't  Socialists. 

CATHOLIC. — Say,  Smith,  the  fact  that  you  Socialists  are  divided  on 
the  fundamental  principle  of  your  system  is  surely  no  recommendation  for 
your  plan.  To  apply  the  example  of  the  Climax  Building  Concern  to  the 
present  sicuation,  I  would  say  that  the  ARCHITECTS  CANNOT  AGREE. 
One  faction  claims  that  the  new  house  must  be  three  stories  high  if  it  is  to 
satisfy  the  requirements  and  that  no  other  kind  of  a  structure  can  possibly 
foot  the  bill.  A  second  faction  calls  the  first  a  pack  of  fools  and  assures 
us  that  a  three-story  house  would  crumble  to  pieces  in  a  year.    The  archi- 


10 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


tects  of  this  set  maintain  that  the  new  home  must  be  a  two-story  structure. 
Now  comes  a  third  faction  of  architects  who  boldly  tell  us  that  both  the 
three-story  and  two-story  advocates  are  dreamers  and  sons  of  dreamers. 
They  are  most  emphatic  in  their  assertion  that  the  building-material  on 
hand  will  not  allow  you  to  go  beyond  the  first  story.  Now,  honest.  Smith, 
no  matter  how  inviting  and  alluring  the  promises  of  Socialism  may  be,  when 
I  find  that  you  Socialists  are  fighting  and  quarreling  among  yourselves  about 
your  fundamental  principle,  that  you  call  one  another  fools  and  dreamers, 
do  you  really  think  it  would  be  a  wise  move  for  me  to  risk  even  one  dollar 
or  one  vote  on  your  party?  Must  you  not  admit  that  I  have  a  very  serious 
reason  for  suspecting  that  YOUR  PROMISES  ARE  EMPTY  PROMISES, 
that  your  plans  at  best  are  plans  and  nothing  else? 

IIL 

Contractors  Non-plussed. 

Little  Details — Getting   Control — Concentration   of   Wealth    and  Industries 
— Purchase — Confiscation — Revolution. 

SOCIALIST. — I  must  admit,  Jones,  that  you  have  reasons  to  be  cautious 
and  I  want  you  to  be  cautious  about  joining  the  Socialist  Party.  But  don\ 
let  those  little  differences  which  you  find  among  us  frighten  you  too  much. 
It's  up  to  you  to  examine  the  merits  of  the  various  factions,  select  the  one 
that  seems  best,  then  put  your  shoulder  to  the  wheel  and  help  us  to  victory. 
Yes,  I  meaa  my  faction,  because  we  are  the  only  true,  genuine  Socialists. 

CATHOLIC. — Smith  you're  a  shrewd  fellow,  a  real  Socialist.  The 
greatest  difficulties  of  your  system  can't  bother  you  in  the  least.  Well,  all 
right,  I'll  examine  your  faction.  So  you  want  the  government  to  own  ALL 
the  means  of  production,  don't  you? 

SOCIALIST.— Yes,  all  of  them. 

CATHOLIC. — I  bought  my  wife  a  sewing-machine  some  time  ago.  That's 
a  means  of  production.    Would  she  be  allowed  to  keep  it? 

SOCIALIST. — Ahem —  If  she  doesn't  use  it  to  make  money,  I  would 
let  her  keep  it. 

CATHOLIC. — So,  she  wouldn't  be  allowed  to  make  a  dress  for  any  of 
her  neighbors  and  charge  for  it? 

SOCIALIST.— Well,  ahem,  oh!  that's  one  of  those  little  details  which 
we  cannot  settle  so  far  ahead.  You  must  remember,  Jones,  let  us  control 
the  big  industries  and  the  little  details  will  take  care  of  themselves. 

CATHOLIC. — You've  forgotten  all  about  the  inch  widening  into  a  mile. 
Well,  in  regard  to  the  big  industries,  factories,  workshops,  etc.,  let  me  ask 
you,  how  do  you  intend  to  get  control  of  them?  You  don't  suppose  that  the 
owners  will  hand  them  over  to  the  government  of  their  own  accord,  do  you? 

SOCIALIST. — Now,  Jones,  that  looks  to  be  a  mighty  big  problem  to  you; 
but,  really,  study  it  a  little  bit,  and  you  will  find  that  it  is  a  very  simple 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


11 


one  after  all.  You  must  know  from  your  own  experience  that  the  poor  are 
becoming  poorer  right  along,  and  that  the  rich  are  becoming  richer.  All 
the  wealth  of  the  country  and  all  the  industries  are  gradually  being  gobbled 
up  by  the  capitalists.  Now,  this  process  will  continue  until  all  the  industries 
are  in  the  hands  of  just  a  few  persons,  when  the  transfer  you  asked  about 
will  be  made  without  difficulty. 

CATHOLIC. — Gee,  that's  as  simple  as  rolling  off  a  log.  But  look  here, 
Smith,  I  don't  know  from  experience  that  the  poor  are  getting  poorer.  I 
know  that  I  am  a  good  deal  better  off  now  than  I  ever  was  before,  and  that 
I  have  ten  dollars  where  my  father  had  one,  when  he  came  from  the 
old  country.  And  I  know  that  to  be  tue  case  with  all  my  friends  and  relatives 
who  are  steady,  sober  and  willing  to  work. 

SOCIALIST. — Well,  you  may  not  know  it  from  your  experience.  It's 
limited  after  all.    But  take  statistics. 

CATHOLIC— Will  you  show  them  to  me? 

SOCIALIST.— I  haven't  got  them  here. 

CATHOLIC. — Say,  I  just  happen  to  remember  what  one  of  your  own 
Socialist  leaders,  his  name  is  Bernstein,  said  in  regard  to  this  matter.  As 
you  probably  know,  he  belonged  to  what  is  called  the  revisionist  wing  of 
Socialists,  and  he  absolutely  denies  the  truth  of  your  statement  which  is 
held  by  orthodox  Marxists.  According  to  Bernstein,  "the  number  of  the 
possessing  classes  is  growing  absolutely  aad  relatively."  (Die  Voraussetzun- 
gen  des  Sozialismus,  etc.,  Stuttgart,  1902,  p.  50.) 

SOCIALIST.— But  look  at  the  facts!  Don't  you  admit  that  the  trusts 
are  eating  up  all  the  smaller  companies? 

CATHOLIC. — In  a  very  few  industries,  that  may  be  true.  But  the  ex- 
ception is  not  the  rule.  I  saw  this  very  point  clearly  proved  in  the  Bulletin 
of  our  Catholic  Federation,  May,  1913,  p.  5.  Facts  and  figures  are  given 
which  show  clearly  that  wealth  is  not  concentrating,  but  is  being  distributed 
and  that  the  number  of  industrial  plants  is  not  diministing,  but  increasing. 
And  your  opportunist  Socialists  agree  with  us  on  this  one  point. 

SOCIALIST. — Can  you  cite  some  of  those  facts  and  figures? 

CATHOLIC. — In  regard  to  the  concentration  of  wealth,  the  example  of 
Pond  &  Co.  was  given.  That  firm  controls  $26,000,000  in  the  market,  and 
hence  would  seem  to  prove  your  claim  that  wealth  is  gradually  being 
acquired  by  a  few  people.  But  upon  a  little  closer  inspection,  it  proves  the 
very  opposite,  because  the  number  of  stockholders  or  owners  is  not  diminish- 
ing, but  increasing  right  along,  so  that  at  present  there  are  4,650. 

SOCIALIST. — And  how  about  the  concentration  of  industries? 

CATHOLIC. — ^In  thirty  years  the  number  of  large  plants  in  Germany 
increased  by  about  400,  while  the  smaller  plants  increased  by  almost  20,000. 
Does  that  look  like  concentration? 

SOCIALIST. — But  how  about  our  own  country?  How  about  the  United 
States? 

CATHOLIC. — The  Negros  will  give  you  an  answer.  "Fifty  years  ago," 
they  will  tell  you,  "we  were  practically  penniless.    Today  we  own  600,000 


12 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


farms  worth  a  half  billion  dollars  and  besides  200,000,000  dollars  worth  of 
personal  property."  You  certainly  can't  make  that  fact  square  with  your 
theory  of  concentration  of  wealth. 

SOCIALIST. — But  there  surely  is  concentration  of  industries  in  the 
United  States. 

CATHOLIC— Let  us  consult  the  Census  for  1910.  I  find  that  in  1909 
there  were  1,000  more  establishments  producing  one  million  or  more  dollars 
worth  of  goods  than  in  1904,  and  that  the  smaller  establishments  increased 
during  the  same  period  by  more  than  50,000.  I  find,  too,  that  the  number 
of  proprietors  of  industries  during  those  four  years  increased  by  50,000. 
Could  I  manufacture  better  arguments  to  disprove  your  theories  than  a  mere 
statement  of  plain  facts?  So  you  see.  Smith,  it  won't  be  so  very  simple 
after  all  for  the  government  to  get  control  of  the  means  of  production  and 
distribution. 

SOCIALIST.— Well,  as  a  last  resort,  it  could  BUY  them  up,  couldn't  it? 

CATHOLIC— Where  is  it  going  to  get  the  money? 

SOCIALIST.— Why,  issue  bonds. 

CATHOLIC— And  who'll  buy  the  bonds? 

SOCIALIST.— The  working  people,  of  course. 

CATHOLIC. — Just  before  you  claimed  they  had  no  money. 

SOCIALIST.— Well,  then,  let  the  others  buy,  too. 

CATHOLIC — Now,  Smith,  just  see  what  an  awful  tangle  you  are  getting 
into.  By  far  the  greater  part  of  the  bonds  would  have  to  be  bought  up  by 
the  preseni-day  capitalists,  the  very  men  from  whose  clutches  you  wish  to 
escape.  The  Commonwealth  would,  therefore,  become  their  debtor  and 
would  have  to  pay  an  enormous  annual  tribute  to  them  in  the  form  of  in- 
terest. And  interest-taking,  you  told  me,  will  not  be  tolerated.  No,  my  good 
man,  neither  purchase  nor  any  other  form  of  compensation  can  be  made  to 
agree  with  Socialistic  principles.  And  that's  the  reason  why  very  nearly  all 
Socialists  have  rejected  them.  Just  let  me  read  to  you  from  my  note-book 
what  one  of  your  leaders  and  writers,  Jeules  Gusde,  has  to  say  on  this  sub- 
ject: "Instead  of  being  despoiled  by  the  wage  system,  the  worker  will  be 
despoiled  'by  taxation — and  that  will  be  the  only  difference.  Expropriation 
with  indemnity  is  consequently  a  dream,  quite  as  much  as,  an.d  even  more, 
than  purchase."  But,  tell  me,  Smith,  why  don't  you  propose  the  simplest 
method  of  acquiring  the  means  of  production  and  distribution,  the  method 
that  is  advocated  by  practically  all  thorough-going  Socialists,  —  I  mean 
confiscation?    Why  don't  you  propose  that? 

SOCIALIST. — Well,  I'll  tell  you,  Jones.  I  may  be  a  great  admirer  of 
Socialism,  tut  I  can  see  so  far  ahead  that  if  we  try  confiscation  there  is 
going  to  be  an  awful  revolution,  with  the  odds  against  us,  for  the  capitalists 
and  their  sympathizers  have  the  powder  and  the  bullets;  and  there  is  going 
to  be  more  bloodshed  than  in  all  the  wars  put  together.  And,  to  be  honest, 
I  can't  get  myself  to  believe  that  if  we  do  succeed,  the  Collective  Common- 
wealth will  stand  on  a  foundation  of  blood. 

CATHOLIC — Ah!  there's  where  you  said  something,  Smith.    But  let 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


13 


me  tell  you  something,  too.  Just  stay  another  year  in  the  Socialist  Party, 
read  Socialist  literature  and  listen  to  Socialist  speeches  on  confiscation,  and 
that  little  scruple  of  yours  will  disappear.  Confiscation  will  appear  to  you 
the  only  sane,  just  and  plausible  means  for  the  Collective  Commonwealth 
to  get  control  of  the  social  tools.  For  the  present,  however,  I  wish  to  insist 
on  this  point,  that  your  Climax  Building  Concern  cannot  tell  me  where  and 
how  it  is  going  to  get  the  site  and  material  for  that  best-equipped  and 
best  arranged  home  it  promises  me.    Your  contractors  are  non-plussed. 


IV. 

Problem  of  the  Superintendent. 

Socialism    Inevitable? — Working    Plan — One    IVIanagement    Throughout — A 
Tremendous  Problem — Height  of  Folly — Postoffice 
— Army  of  Unproductive  Laborers. 

SOCIALIST. — Jones,  I  may  not  be  able  to  tell  you  just  how  we  are  going 
to  get  control  of  the  means  of  production  and  distribution;  but  that  we  are 
going  to  get  control  of  them  is  plain  as  daylight  to  any  one  that  considers 
the  immense  progress  Socialism  is  making  in  all  parts  of  the  civilized  world. 
Just  think  of  it:  within  forty  years  we  have  gained  about  25,000,000  adherents. 
No  other  movement  in  the  whole  history  of  the  world  can  point  to  such  a 
phenomenal  growth.  The  enormous  momentum  which  Socialism  has 
acquired  and  which  is  constantly  increasing  stamps  our  movement  as 
inevitable. 

CATHOLIC. — Beware!  Smith,  beware!  You  know  how  your  great 
leader,  Bebel,  stultified  himself  by  prophecying  that  the  Industrial  Common- 
wealth would  be  established  in  1895!  That  Socialism  has  increased  by  leaps 
and  bounds  I  must  admit,  but  that  its  past  phenomenal  growth  argues  for 
Its  future  establishment,  I  deny.  You  know  the  lesson  which  the  quickest 
growing  plant,  the  mushroom,  teaches  us.  I  am  fully  convinced  that  So- 
cialism, at  least  as  an  economic  system,  has  seen  its  day. 

SOCIALIST. — Now,  Jones,  don't  close  your  eyes  ro  plain  and  evident 
facts. 

CATHOLIC. — Facts?    Don't  you  know  that  here  in  the  United  States 
your  party  Jost  50,000  dues-paying  members  during  the  past  year?  that  within 
the  same  period  your  organs,  "The  Chicago  Daily  Socialist,"  "The  Coming 
Nation"  and  "The  Cleveland  Socialist,"  went  bankrupt?    Don't  you  know 
that  even  Ir  the  great  stronghold  of  Socialism,  in  Germany,  your  party  is 
losing  ground  continually?    At  the  Socialist  Convention,  held  this  summer 
i  /  in  Jena,  your  leaders  were  forced  to  admit  that,  in  spite  of  the  desperate 
K  efforts  of  the  Comrades,  the  subscription  lists  of  their  publications  were 
I     melting  away  at  the  rate  of  over  1,000  each  month.    And  in  the  October 
I    elections  your  party  lost  very  heavily  all  along  the  line;  in  one  state  alone, 
\     12,000  votes.    No,  Smith,  Socialism  is  not  a  winning  movement.    By  holding 


14 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


out  the  most  alluring  promises  of  economic  justice,  comfort  and  luxury  you 
Socialists  succeeded  in  gaining  the  confidence  of  thousands  of  oppressed  and 
dissatisfied  workmen.    Now,  however,  they  are  beginning  to  realize  that  your 
promises  were  but  promises,  nothing  else. 
SOCIALIST —I  beg  to  differ  from  you. 

CATHOLIC. — Now,  Smith,  don't  you  close  your  eyes  to  plain  and  evident 
facts.  You  had  to  admit  that  the  architects  of  your  Building  Concern  are"  at 
loggerheads  and  that  your  contractors  do  not  know  where  nor  how  to  get 
the  material  needed  for  the  construction  of  that  magnificent  home  you 
promised  me.  In  my  opinion,  that  is  suflacient  evidence  to  prove  that  your 
promises  are  empty  promises,  and  I  would  be  a  consummate  fool  were  I  to 
bank  on  them  and  begin  tearing  down  my  house,  as  you  bid  me  Well,  I 
know  it's  very,  very  hard  to  give  up  pet  notions  and  to  forsake  long-cherished 
plans.  Let  us  continue  our  investigation.  Supposing  that  a  contractor  has 
received  a  definite  building-plan  from  his  architect,  what  does  he  do  with  it? 

SOCIALIST. — Very  often,  at  least,  he  hands  it  over  to  his  superintendent 
who  divides  up  the  work  required  in  the  construction  of  the  building  among 
the  cement-workers,  structural  iron-workers,  masons,  bricklayers,  electricians, 
carpenters,  and  so  on.  It's  the  superintendent's  duty  to  draw  up  a  working- 
plan;  that  is,  he  must  figure  out  exactly  what  each  trade  must  do  and  he 
must  determine  the  time  when  the  respective  jobs  are  to  be  done.  Unless 
you  have  a  working-plan  made  out  beforehand,  your  building  can't  possibly 
go  up. 

CATHOLIC. — And  now.  Smith,  who  in  your  Co-operative  Commonwealth 
corresponds  to  the  superintendent?  Who  divides  up  the  vast  amount  of  work 
that  is  to  be  done,  co-ordinates  it  and  regulates  it  and  controls  it? 

SOCIALIST. — Why,  the  President.  Of  course  he'll  be  assisted  by  a 
cabinet,  which  will  be  composed  of  the  heads  of  the  various  departments. 

CATHOLIC. — Will  you  have  such  a  President  with  a  cabinet  in  each 
State  of  the  Union? 

SOCIALIST. — Oh,  no!  Industries  will  be  organized  very  much  in  the 
same  way  as  our  postal  service  is, — one  management  throughout.  If  the 
social  tools  were  left  to  the  individual  States  so  that  they  could  produce 
what  they  chose  and  as  much  as  they  pleased,  competition  between  these 
various  units  would  necessarily  spring  up.  In  its  train  would  follow  all  the 
evils  of  the  present  competitive  system:  waste,  robbery,  oppression,  swind- 
ling, fluctuation,  etc.   No,  we  will  have  a  very  highly  centralized  organization. 

CATHOLIC. — Your  President  and  his  cabinet  will  have  a  good  deal  to 
attend  to,  won't  they? 

SOCIALIST.— They  certainly  will. 

CATHOLIC. — Did  you  Socialists  ever  try  to  draw  up  a  working-plan  for 
the  superintendent  of  your  Commonwealth? 
SOCIALIST.— Not  that  I  know  of. 

CATHOLIC. — Just  a  minute  ago  you  told  me  an  ordinary  building  can- 
not be  erected  without  a  very  definite  working-plan.    How,  then,  can  you 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


15 


expect  your  vast  Industrial  Commonwealth  to  be  established  and  to  run  on 
smoothly  without  one? 

SOCIALIST— Oh,  it  won't  be  so  difficult  to  devise  a  working-plan.  You 
see  the  government  will  be  assisted  by  experts. 

CATHOLIC— Well,  Smith,  I  can't  agree  with  you  there.  I  think  it  will 
not  only  be  extremely  difficult,  but  simply  impossible  to  devise  a  practical 
working-plan.  Just  let  me  read  a  few  numbers  to  you  from  my  note-book 
Uhey  are  taken  from  the  last  census)  and  we  will  get  a  faint,  a  very  faint, 
idea  of  the  tremendous  problem  confronting  your  central  authority  which 
the  working-plan  should  solve.  In  our  country  93,402,151  inhabitants  are  to 
be  fed,  clothed,  housed,  educated,  etc.;  46,701,076  must  be  employed;  3,026,789 
square  miles  of  land  must  be  looked  after;  6,361,502  farms  must  be  operated, 
representing  an  area  of  878,798,325  acres;  they  are  valued  at  $34,801,125,697 
and  yield  crops  to  the  amount  of  $5,487,000,000  and  live  stock  worth  $4,925,- 
600,000;  268,491  factories  must  be  run;  they  employ  7,678,578  persons,  repre- 
sent a  capital  of  $18,428,270  and  produce  manufactures  worth  $20,672,052; 
166,320  wells  and  18,164  mines  and  quarries  must  be  worked;  they  have 
1,139,332  employees,  a  capital  of  $3,380,525,841  and  yield  products  valued  at 
$1,238,410,^22;  241,004  miles  of  railroads  and  219,219  miles  of  telephone  lines 
must  be  operated;  $1,653,354,934  worth  of  goods  must  be  imported;  $2,204,- 
322,409  worth  of  goods  must  be  exported.  Smith,  let  that  be  enough  for  the 
present.  T'l  say  nothing  about  the  3,000,000  dwellings  that  must  be  erected, 
about  the  stores,  warehouses,  elevators,  steamship  lines,  and  so  on  and  so  on. 
And  I'll  overlook  entirely  the  immense  amount  of  work  our  government  has 
even  now.  I  only  wish  to  state  that  it  seems  to  me  to  be  the  height  of  folly 
on  the  part  of  you  Socialists  to  dream  of  handling  the  business  expressed 
by  those  staggering  figures  and  to  trust  to  luck  for  success.  And  if  you  think 
that  a  practical  working-plan  based  on  Socialistic  principles  can  be  devised 
whereby  ail  those  industries  with  their  incomprehensible  volume  of  business 
and  all  it  implies  can  be  systematized,  regulated,  co-ordinated,  without  hitch 
or  failure,  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  all  concerned,  well,  then,  you  are 
welcome  tu  think  so.    I  for  one  do  not  and  cannot  believe  it. 

SOCIALIST. — But,  Jones,  doesn't  the  postoffice  take  care  of  an  immense 
amount  of  business? 

CATHOLIC. — Ah,  Smith;  common  sense  should  suggest  that  there  is 
absolutely  no  comparison.  In  the  first  place,  the  postoffice  is  run  along 
capitalistic  lines.  Then,  its  work  of  collecting  and  distributing  mail  and 
parcels  is  after  all  not  such  a  very  complex  problem,  if  the  government  had 
to  write  each  letter,  print  each  separate  periodical  or  book  and  make  up 
each  indiv.-dual  parcel,  there  would  be  a  slight  comparison  possible. 

SOCIALIST. — You  seem  to  forget  altogether  that  our  central  authority 
will  have  tne  assistance  of  a  large  force  of  help.  There  will  be  boards,  com- 
/mittees,  sub-committees,  statisticians,  clerks,  experts,  and  so  on. 
^  CATHOLIC— No,  I  don't  forget  them  at  all.  They  are  all  to  be  brought 
into  your  working-plan,  and  I  am  afraid  that  far  from  diminishing  your  diffi- 
culties, they  are  going  to  multiply  them.    They  represent  the  machinery  of 


16 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


your  Industrial  Commonwealth  and  all  machinery  implies  waste;  in  point 
of  fact,  some  machinery  consumes  more  energy  than  it  transmits,  and  there- 
fore leads  to  failure  and  bankruptcy.  That  the  enormous  army  of  unpro- 
ductive laborers  (your  machinery)  in  your  Commonwealth  will  not  bring 
on  failure  ts  for  you  to  prove. 


V. 

Problems  of  the  Assistant  Superintendent. 

Present  Conditions  Intolerable — Decapitation:  a  Cure  for  Headache — Regulat- 
ing   Production — Concentration    of    Dissatisfaction — Absolute 
Necessity  of  Accurate  Estimates — An  Arithmetical 
Problem — Socialist  Waste — A  Miracle. 

SOCIALIST. — Working-plan  or  no  working  plan,  Jones,  present  condi- 
tions are  simply  Intolerable  and  we  laborers  won't  stand  for  them  much 
longer.  Were  not  free,  we're  slaves;  we're  the  wage  slaves  of  a  brood  of 
robbers  and  tyrants,  subject  to  their  every  beck  and  call.  In  order  that 
these  licentious,  immoral  dead-beats  may  live  in  luxury  and  plenty,  we,  the 
producers  of  wealth,  must  sacrifice  our  health,  our  limbs,  our  lives,  our 
morals,  our  wives,  our  children.  Look  at  the  human  scrap-heap  piling  up 
in  our  public  institutions;  go  to  our  hospitals,  visit  our  homes,  if  you  think 
I  am  exaggerating. 

CATHOLIC. — Smith,  I'll  let  you  in  on  a  little  secret  of  mine.  I  am  just 
about  as  much  dissatisfied  with  present  conditions  as  you  are  and  I  feel 
the  cruel  injustice  that  is  done  us  workmen  as  keenly  so,  you  do.  I  realize 
fully  that  our  much-boasted  liberty  is  a  hollow  mockery  for  a  large  propor- 
tion of  the  working-class.  And,  to  be  candid,  when  I  feel  the  galling  chains 
with  which  capitalism  has  enslaved  us,  I  sometimes  nibble  at  Socialism — 
it  looks  so  Inviting  and  promising.  But,  thank  Grod,  I  always  feel  the  hook 
before  it  is  too  late. 

SOCIALIST.— Well,  what  are  you  going  to  do  about  it? 

CATHOLIC. — Let  us  discuss  that  some  other  time.  I  do  not  think  it 
wise  to  cut  a  man's  head  off  in  order  to  cure  his  headache,  no  matter  how 
severe  it  may  be;  nor  do  I  think  that  a  fish  has  obtained  liberty  when  it  is 
dangling  in  space  on  a  hook,  no  matter  how  confining  ;>ho  jar  in  which  it  had 
been  imprisoned.  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  Socialism  implies  such  opinions 
and  leads  to  such  conclusions.  I  hope  to  be  able  to  show  you  this  as  we  go 
on  with  our  discussion. 

SOCIALIST. — I  am  open  to  conviction,  but  you'll  have  to  *'show  me." 

CATHOLIC. — Very  well.  Let  us  continue  our  investigation  of  your 
Building  Concern.  The  material  that  is  needed  in  the  construction  of  a 
building  is  figured  out  beforehand,  isn't? 

SOCIALIST. — Most  assurredly.  Certain  men,  whom  we  may  call  assistant 
superintendents,  figure  out  almost  to  an  inch  or  a  pound  the  amount  of 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


17 


structural  iron,  cement,  stone,  brick,  sand,  and  so  on  that  will  be  needed. 
They  know  approximately  when  and  in  what  quantities  the  various  materials 
will  be  needed  and  have  contracts  for  their  delivery  drawn  up  accordingly. 
This  must  be  done  in  order  to  save  time,  keep  the  working  force  together, 
avoid  waste  and,  in  general,  to  keep  down  expenses. 

CATHOLIC. — Now,  Smith,  something  similar  will  have  to  be  done  by 
officials  of  your  commonwealth.  They  will  have  to  figure  out  how  much  of 
every  needed  article  must  be  procured,  when  and  where  it  is  to  be  delivered 
and  so  on.    Isn't  that  right? 

SOCIALIST. — It  surely  is.  That's  one  oi  tue  strong  pomxs  ui  Socialism. 
By  making  estimates  in  advance  and  regulating  production  accordingly,  we 
will  eliminate  the  frightful  waste  of  our  present  plajiless,  haphazard  system 
of  production.  Of  course,  we  realize  fully  that  these  estimates  will  play  an 
important  role  in  our  future  State;  in  fact,  the  success  or  failure  of  the  one 
is  bound  up  with  the  success  or  failure  of  the  other.  Under  our  present 
system  we  are  dissatisfied  with  a  good  many  things,  with  work,  with  pay, 
food,  furniture,  service,  and  so  on.  But,  since  this  immense  dissatisfaction 
comes  from  so  many  different  quarters,  we  still  manage  to  bear  up  under  it. 
In  the  Co-operative  Commonwealth,  however,  dissatisfaction  will  come  from 
one  quarter  only,  from  the  government,  which  will  be  our  milkman,  butcher, 
grocer,  tailor,  druggist,  etc. 

CATHOLIC— Yes,  I  see  the  great  danger  of  concentration  of  dissatis- 
faction and  the  absolute  necessity  of  accurate  estimates..  But  won't  that  be 
a  big  problem! 

SOCIALIST. — Surely.  But,  remember,  we  are  a  big  people  too.  You 
see  we  shall  have  a  large  force  of  expert  statisticians  in  our  service. 

CATHOLIC. — Have  you  any  idea  how  these  statisticians  are  going  to 
make  their  estimates.  Are  they  going  to  issue  peremptory  orders  and  assign 
to  all  of  us  a  certain  amount  and  kind  of  food,  clothing,  furniture,  utensils 
and  so  on? 

SOCIALIST. — By  no  manner  of  means.  Why  that  would  be  the  height 
of  tyranny.   Every  man  will  be  allowed  to  choose  for  himself. 

CATHOLIC. — But  your  statisticians  must  figure  out  in  advance  whajt 
each  man  is  going  to  choose  for  himself.  And  how  are  they  going  to  figure 
that  out? 

SOCIALIST. — Our  experts  will  take  the  present  consumption  as  a  basis, 
make  allowances  for  shortage,  waste  or  surplus,  and  in  this  way  they  will 
be  able  to  calculate  the  future  demand  quite  exactly. 

CATHOLIC— Oh,  no!  Smith,  that  won't  work.  You  forget  altogether 
that  conditions  in  the  Socialist  State  will  be  entirely  different  from  what 
they  are  now.  We  are  all  supposed  to  be  equal  and  have  equal  buyiug 
power,  which  certainly  is  not  the  case  at  present. 

SOCIALIST. — ^Well,  we  can  ask  each  inhabitant  to  draw  up  a  list  of  his 
needs  for  the  coming  year  and  hand  that  in  to  our  statisticians. 

CATHOLIC. — Smith,  will  you  try  that  scheme  on  yourself  for  one  year? 
Write  out  for  me  such  a  list  of  things(  that  you  want — the  kind  and  amoimt 


18 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


of  clothing  (hats,  caps,  shoes,  stockings,  shirts,  underwear,  coats,  etc.),  of 
food  (meat,  bread,  cakes,  potatoes,  cabbage,  carrots,  beans,  and  so  on),  of 
furniture  (chairs,  tables,  beds,  bedding,  carpets,  rugs,  and  so  on),  of  the 
thousand  little  incidentals  that  are  used  or  needed  in  every  household, 
(thread,  buttons,  needles,  blacking,  tooth  powder,  tooth  brushes,  chewing 
gum,  candy,  and  so  on,  and  so  on).  I  would  advise  you  to  consult  the 
catalog  of  one  of  our  mammoth  mail-order  houses  so  that  there  won't  be 
much  danger  of  forgetting  anything.  You  know  we  must  prevent  all  dis- 
satisfaction. Incidentally,  you  will  learn  what  a  colossal  task  you  are  : 
expecting  your  statisticians  to  perform. 

SOCIALIST. — I  didn't  deny  that  they  would  have  a  big  problem  to 
solve.    They're  solving  big  problems  for  us  every  day.    For  example  let  me  ; 
call  your  attention  to  the  census  which  required  the  help  of  about  70,000 
enumerators  and  an  office  force  of  Over  3,000  clerks. 

CATHOLIC. — I'm  glad  you  mentioned  the  census,   Smith,  because  it 
suggests  a  little  arithmetical  problem  which  will  throw  some  light  on  the  . 
matter  in  question.    You  must  keep  in  mind  the  fact  that  our  ordinary! 
census  concerns  itself  with  about  ten  items,  (color,  nativity,  parentage,  sex, 
age  and  marital  conditions,  etc.),  whilst  your  census  would  have  to  take  j 
account  of  over  40,000  items.    I  take  the  number  40,^00  because  so  many  t 
items  are  listed  in  the  catalog  of  one  of  Chicago's  great  mail-order  houses. —  ■ 
And  now  for  the  problem.    If  70,000  enumerators  and  3,000  clerks  are  neces-  \ 
siary  to  collect  and  tabulate  the  data  of  a  census  of  ten  items,  how  many  \ 
enumerators  and  clerks  will  be  necessary  to  collect  and  tabulate  the  data  j; 
of  a  census  of  over  40,000  items?   And  if  it  takes  two  to  four  years  to  finish  j 
off  the  one  census,  how  many  years  will  it  take  to  finish  off  the  other? 

SOCIALIST. — I  confess,  I  never  looked  at  the  problem  of  forecasting 
the  demands  for  commodities  in  that  way. 

CATHOLIC. — Well,  I  am  not  done  with  you  yet.    You  must  remember 
that  the  vast  army  of  enumerators  and  clerks  represent  so  much  unpro- 
ductive labor,  a  waste  from  the  Socialist  point  of  view.    Then  I  want  to  call 
your  attention  to  a  stupendous  miracle  which  you  expect  your  statisticians  j 
to  perform.   You  expect  them  to  increase  our  present  supply  of  commodities  \ 
almost  indefinitely  and  at  the  same  time  to  decrease  production! 

SOCIALIST.— How  do  you  make  that  out? 

CATHOLIC. — On  the  one  hand  you  promise  us  workmen  a  greater  share  \ 
in  the  goods  of  this  world  and  on  the  other  you  also  promise  us  shorter  :  1 
hours. — Oh,  Smith,  even  if  you  had  a  working-plan  for  your  Concern  it  ; 
would  not  work;  if  you  could  devise  a  governmental  machinery  for  your  \  s 
Industrial  Commonwealth  it  would  not  run.  The  only  solution  of  the  problem  •  fl 
under  discussion  is  the  one  I  suggested  at  the  outset  and  which  obtains  in  .  ji 
the  army:  issue  peremptory  orders  and  assign  to  all  a  certain  amount  and  i  a 
kind  of  food,  clothing,  furniture,  utensils,  etc.  Don't  you  feel  the  mailed  j  D 
hand  under  the  Socialist  kid  glove? 

1 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


19 


VI. 

Problems  of  the  Foreman. 

A    Catchy    Question— Personal    Interest — A     Beautiful     Dream — Assigning 
Jobs — Dirty  Worl< — Automatic  Adjustment — Whole 
Tendency  Downward  and  Backward. 

SOCIALIST. — Jones,  there's  a  flaw  somewhere  in  your  reasoning  which 
escaped  mv^.  You  say  that  we  Socialists  cannot  devise  a  working-plan  for 
our  Cooperative-Commonwealth  and  that  even  if  we  did  devise  one  it  would 
not  work. 

CATHOLIC— That's  what  I  said,  and  I  think  I  proved  it,  too. 
SOCIALIST. — Well,  now,  isn't  it  true  that  all  the  industries  are  run  at 
the  present  time? 

CATHOLIC. — Yes,  they're  run  to  a  certain  fashion. 

SOCIALIST. — Why,  then,  should  they  come  to  a  standstill  just  because 
owners  have  changed  hands,  just  because  they  will  be  run  for  the  benefit 
of  all  the  people  instead  of  for  the  enrichment  of  a  few? 

CATHOLIC. — That's  a  catchy  Socialist  question,  I  admit.  It's  like  this 
conundrum:  Why  can't  a  man  raise  himself  from  the  floor  by  pulling  at 
his  bootstraps?  The  answer  to  both  is  the  same:  because  you  can't,  spend 
your  money  and  keep  it  at  the  same  time. 

SOCIALIST. — I  don't  see  the  point.    Where  is  the  connection? 

CATHOLIC— Let  me  tell  you  a  story.  Once  upon  a  time  there  was  a 
man  who  suffered  from  headache,  stomachache  and  many  other  aches.  When 
he  learned  from  his  doctor  that  all  his  troubles  were  due  to  an  irregular 
and  unequal  distribution  of  blood  he  prayed  most  fervently  to  Jupiter,  the 
highest  of  the  gods:  "O  Father  Jupiter,  you  were  kind  enough  to  give  me 
control  over  my  hands  and  feet  but  you  did  not  give  me  the  power  to  control 
the  circulation  of  my  blood.  And  see  the  consequence:  my  head  is  overfed 
and  the  rest  of  my  body  is  underfed;  I  am  suffering  terribly  from  one 
disease  or  another  all  my  life.  Oh!  allow  ME  to  regulate  the  flow  of  those 
life-giving  streams  in  my  body  and  I  will  become  a  strong,  healthy  man.  In 
gratitude  I  will  serve  you  faithfully  to  my  dying  day."  This  fervent  prayer 
was  heard  and  the  request  granted.    Do  you  know  what  happened? 

SOCIALIST. — I  can  easily  imagine.  The  poor  fool  should  have  known 
that  he  had  enough  to  do  without  looking  after  the  circulation  of  his  blood 
through  se\eral  million  veins,  arteries  and  capillaries.  He  was  a  corpse  in 
less  time  than  it  takes  to  tell. 

CATHOLIC. — Well,  Smith,  you  Socialists  are  trying  to  undertake  a 
similar  task  in  regard  to  Society.  You  want  to  control  the  circulation  or 
flow  of  wealth  absolutely  and  completely,  and  you  imagine  it  will  be  easy 
just  because  you  see  wealth  flowing  now.  You  expect  to  have  all  the 
advantages  of  the  present  automatic  and  natural  regulation  of  wealth  with 
none  of  its  disadvantages  and  then,  besides,  you  expect  the  advantages  of  a 


20 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


diametrically  opposed  system,  namely  an  absolutely  controlled  regulation. 
You  want  to  spend  your  money  and  keep  it  at  the  same  time. 

SOCIALIST. — If  I'm  not  mistaken  you  are  thinking  now  of  that  bugaboo 
with  which  our  enemies  try  to  frighten  us  and  our  prospective  adherents — 
I  mean  the  absence  of  personal  interest  which,  as  you  claim,  will  wreck  our 
Commonwealth. 

CATHOLIC. — Yes,  that  enters  into  consideration  too.  You  have  no 
substitute  for  personal  interest  wljiich  will  impel  the  members  of  your 
Commonwealth  to  do  a  reasonable  amount  of  work,  let  alone  develop  the 
best  that  is  in  them. 

SOCIALIST. — Now,  there  you  are  badly  mistaken.  Is  Goethals  building 
the  Panama  Canal  from  a  motive  of  direct  personal  interest?  Did  Washing- 
ton establish  this  grand  republic  for  the  money  that  was  "in  the  job"?  Did 
Raphael  paint  the  Sistine  Madonna  for  a  pecuniary  reward?  Did  

CATHOLIC. — Stop!  Smith,  wake  up  from  your  beautiful  dream.  Do  you 
expect  to  built  Panama  canals  and  establish  grand  republics  and  paint  Madon- 
nas as  soon  as  the  Socialist  Commonwealth  is  established?  Look  at  the  cold 
facts.  We  have  seen  the  impossibilities  you  expect  from  your  architects,  con- 
tractors, superintendents,  assistant  superintendents,  and  the  farther  we  go 
down  the  line  of  officials  the  more  hopeless  the  outlook  becomes.  Your 
beautiful  dream  of  the  grand  work  you  are  going  to  do  reminds  me  of  the 
foreman,  who  has  charge  of  employment  in  your  Commonwealth. 

SOCIALIST. — Well,  here,  at  least,  I  can  hold  my  ground.  Socialism  can 
solve  that  worst  curse  of  the  workman,  unemployment..  Oh,  what  a  terrible 
word,  what  a  horrible  nightmare!  I  shiver  from  head  to  foot  when  I  think 
of  the  days  and  nights  I  walked  the  streets  looking  for  work;  not  a  bite 
to  eat — my  wife  and  children  starving. 

CATHOLIC. — I've  been  there,  too,  Smith  and  I  know  what  it  means. 
But  to  come  back  to  the  foreman.   How  are  you  going  to  assign  jobs? 

SOCIALIST. — We  are  not  going  to  assign  jobs.  That  would  be  tyranny 
and  downright  slavery,  and  no  comrade  would  stand  for  it.  Every  man  and 
woman  will  be  allowed  to  choose  the  work  he  or  she  likes  best. 

CATHOLIC. — Won't  there  be  a  general  rush  for  tho  soft  and  easy  snaps 
then?  You  must  remember  that  we  will  all  start  out  in  life  on  a  perfectly 
equal  basis,  with  the  same  education,  equal  rights  and  no  special  privileges. 
In  other  words  who  is  going  to  do  the  dirty  work? 

SOCIALIST. — First  of  all  you  must  remember,  Jones,  that  dirty  work 
is  being  diminished  every  day  by  new  inventions. 

CATHOLIC— Well,  now,  I'm  just  a  little  doubtful  about  that.  It  seems  to 
me  that  there  is  more  dirty  work  now  than  there  ever  was.  Most  of  the 
work  in  our  factories  is  dirty  work,  to  my  mind,  even  if  you  could  do  it  with 
your  Sunday  clothes  on.  The  same  holds  good  of  railroads,  steam-ships, 
mines,  farming,  and  practically  all  modern  industries. 

SOCIALIST. — There  is  really  no  need  of  disputing  or  arguing  about 
that  point.  Our  solution  of  the  employment  problem  is,  after  all,  independent 
of  it.   You  eee,  as  soon  as  we  find  that  there  is  a  shortage  of  laborers  in  any 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


21 


particular  indusitry  we  will  sliorten  its  labor-time,  and  where  there  happens 
to  be  a  surplus  of  laborers  we  will  lengthen  the  labor  time. 

CATHOLIC. — Let  me  apply  your  principle  of  automatic  adjustment  to  a 
concrete  example.  Suppose  that  there  is  a  surplus  of  physicians  and  a 
shortage  of  miners.  Will  you  shorten  the  labor-time  of  the  miners  in  the 
hope  that  some  of  the  physicians  will  take  to  mining? 

SOCIALIST.— Yes,  we'll  do  something  like  that. 

CATHOLIC. — But  look  at  the  trouble  you  are  going  to  get  into.  First 
of  all  the  physicians  will  raise  a  howl  because  they  are  being  discriminated 
against.  You  are  rating  their  services  lower  than  those  of  unskilled  labor 
and  indirectly,  at  least,  you  are  trying  to  drive  them  out  of  their  profession. 
And  supposing  the  scheme  would  work,  what  will  be  the  result?  Physicians 
will  become  miners.  What  a  waste  in  skill  and  talent!  And  won't  those 
doctors  who  have  been  accustomed  to  wield  the  delicate  instruments  of 
surgery  or  to  diagnose  a  sickness  and  write  out  prescriptions,  feel  right  at 
home  down  in  the  shaft  of  a  mine  burrowing  out  coal  with  pick  and  shovel! 
But  the  greatest  objection  I  have  to  your  scheme  is  this,  that  all  along  the 
line  labor  forces  will  be  withdrawn  from  the  higher  and  skilled  occupations 
and  that  as  a  consequence  the  entire  tendency  of  the  Commonwealth  will  be 
downward  and  backward.  Why  don't  you  advocate  Bebel's  scheme  and  have 
us  all  take  turns  in  doing  dirty  work? 

SOCIALIST. — Ah,  nonsense!  I  told  you  I  am  against  assigning  work 
because  it  means  slavery.  Besides,  the  scheme  is  too  ridiculous  on  the  very 
face  of  it  to  deserve  further  consideration. 

CATHOLIC. — Well,  then.  Smith,  I  think  you  must  admit  that  you  Social- 
ists have  no  satisfactory  solution  for  the  employment  problem.  The  only 
way  you  can  possibly  solve  it  is  to  assign  to  each  comrade  a  job  and  make 
him  hold  it  down  no  matter  whether  he  likes  it  or  not.  But  that's  what  I 
call  cutting  a  man's  head  off  to  cure  his  headache. 

VII. 

Problems  of  the  Paymaster. 

Foolish   Questions — Labor-Check — Remuneration   of    Labor — Legalized  Rob- 
bery— Labor-Product — Oh!  so  Simple — Labor 
the  Only  Source  of  Wealth. 

SOCIALIST. — Jones,  I  must  admit  that  I  cannot  answer  ail  your  ques- 
tions satisfactorily.  But,  really,  you  should  not  expect  me  to,  either.  I  am 
not  a  profe::,cior,  not  even  a  student;  I  am  only  an  ordinary  workman.  Put 
your  questions  to  our  leaders,  to  the  men  that  have  made  a  study  of  So- 
cialism, and  I  am  sure  they  will  give  you  information  on  all  those  points 
where  you  cornered  me. 

CATHOLIC— Taat's  a  strange  confession  you  are  making.  Smith. 
You  admit  tliat  you  have  adopted  Socialism  without  understanding  it  and 


22 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


that  you  are  trying  to  win  recruits  for  the  movement  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  you  cannot  answer  a  number  of  very  elementary  questions.  But  I  am 
not  surprised  at  this,  for  I  have  encountered  the  same  experience  over  and 
over  again;  and  as  for  your  leaders,  do  you  know  what  Liebknecht  answered 
wben  questions  were  put  to  him  concerning  the  Socialist  State? 

SOCIALIST. — Liebknecht  is  an  authority  with  us.  He  was  one  of  our 
greatest  leaders.   Wliat  did  he  say? 

CATHOLIC. — He  told  Bachem  in  the  German  Reicbstag  that  the  inquiry 
concerning  the  future  state  is  "a  question  which  only  fools  will  answer."  So 
you  see  he  is  not  very  complimentary  to  you  who  thought  it  but  fair  to  try 
to  answer  my  questions.  Now  that  you  have  heard  that  remark  of  your 
famous  authority  and  great  leader,  you  may  perhaps  wish  me  to  stop  my 
investigation  of  your  Climax  Building  Concern,  of  Socialism? 

SOCIALIST. — Not  at  all.  If  Socialism  cannot  bear  investigation,  and 
if  our  leaders  cannot  answer  reasonable  questions  regarding  ithe  Co-operative 
Commonwealth  in  a  satisfactory  manner,  why,  the  sooner  the  Socialist 
Party  disappears  from  the  face  of  the  earth  the  better  for  all  concerned. 
Your  questions  have  indicated  to  me  the  lines  along  which  my  own  study 
and  inquiry  must  be  directed  in  the  future  and  if  you  have  any  more,  why, 
just  propose  them. 

CATHOLIC. — All  right.  Smith.  I  must  compliment  you  for  your  fair- 
ness. My  next  question  is  in  regard  to  the  pay-master  of  the  Building  Con- 
cern. But  first  I  want  to  ask  you  If  you  agree  with  those  Comrades  who  wisih 
to  do  away  with  money? 

SOCIALIST. — No,  I  do  not  agree  with  them.  Money  as  such  is  not  the 
cause  of  our  present  social  evils.  The  fanciful  labor-check  about  which  some 
make  so  much  ado  is  really  only  another  form  of  money  without  the  many 
advantages  of  our  present  monetary  system.  Of  course,  I  wisb  to  insist  that 
labor  will  be  the  real  measure  of  value  and  that  money  will  be  merely  its 
expression.  We  can  remunerate  labor  more  easily  with  dollars  and  cents 
than  with  labor-checks. 

CATHOLIC. — That's  just  what  I  want  to  get  at:  remuneration  or  pay 
of  labor.  You  Socialists  make  a  good  deal  of  capital  out  of  our  present 
system  of  remuneration,  the  wage  system.  You  denounce  it  in  almost  every 
book  and  every  paper  and  every  lecture  as  systematized  robbery  and  ex- 
ploitation of  the  working-class,  as  the  ultimate  source  of  our  social  troubles. 
And  you  promise  us  workmen  that  in  the  Co-operative  Commonwealth  we 
shall  all  get  the  full  social  value  of  the  wealth  we  create,  a  remuneration 
sufficient  to  keep  us  all  in  comfort,  not  to  say  luxury. 

SOCIALIST. — Yes,  we  promise  that  for  the  simple  reason  that  we  are 
going  to  do  away  with  interest,  rent  and  dividends  by  means  of  which  do- 
notbing  capitalists  are  enabled  to  rob  us  workingmen  of  two^th-irds  of  our 
labor  product. 

CATHOLIC. — I  admit  that  capitalists  have  outraged  us  workingmen  most 
shamefully,  but  even  if  you  take  into  account  stock-watering,  monopolistic 
prices  and  all  the  other  villainous  methods  of  modern  freebooting,  I  do  not 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


23 


think  that  the  civilized  licensed  robbers  of  our  present  day,  taken  as  a  b^dy, 
have  despoiled  us  to  the  extent  of  sixty-six  per  cent.  At  any  rate,  you 
Socialists  could  never  prove  your  assertion.  However,  there  is  no  need 
losing  time  over  this  point,  because  we  are  only  concerned  with  Socialism 
which  you  claim  will  remedy  the  evil.  I  want  to  know  how  you  are  going  to 
solve  the  difficult  problem  of  remunerating  labor.  Will  your  paymaster  give 
each  employee  of  the  Commonwealth,  say,  one  dollar  per  hour,  irrespective 
of  the  kind  or  amount  of  labor  he  performs? 

SOCIALIST. — Nonsense.  I  know  some  hair-brained  Socialists  have  ad- 
vocated that  absurd  plan.  They  could  not  see  that  it  is  in  direct  contradic- 
tion to  a  first  principle  of  Socialism,  that  each  workman  should  receive  the 
full  social  value  of  the  wealth  he  creates — no  more,  no  less.  Put  all  em- 
ployees on  the  same  level  without  regard  to  kind  and  amount  of  labor  per- 
formed and  you  will  banish  from  the  community  every  indication  of  industry 
and  skill,  you  will  put  a  premium  on  laziness  and  inefficiency,  you  will  drive 
the  Commonwealth  into  bankruptcy  before  you  are  aware  of  it.  No,  Jones, 
if  a  man  wants  to  earn  a  dollar  he  must  iproduce  a  dollar's  worth. 

CATHOLIC. — That  sounds  very  reasonable.  But  tell  me  how  will  you 
know  when  a  man  has  produced  a  dollar's  worth? 

SOCIALIST.— Oh,  that  won't  be  so  hard.  You  see  the  labor  product  is 
always  equal. 

CATHOLIC— I  don't  understand  you. 

SOCIALIST. — Let  me  explain  by  means  of  an  example.  Suppose  it 
takes  a  carpenter  one  hour  to  make  a  chair  and  five  hours  to  make  a  table, 
why  then  one  table  will  be  worth  five  chairs.  And  if  the  chair  sells  for  one 
dollar,  then  the  carpenter  is  entitled  to  get  one  dollar  for  each  hour  that  he 
works.  Apply  that  principle  to  all  our  industries  and  you  will  have  a  simple 
but  just  scheme  for  determining  a  man's  wage. 

CATHOLIC. — Simple,  Indeed.  But  it  seems  to  me  its  very  simplicity 
is  its  strongest  refutation,  for  it  necessarily  supposes  a  very  simple  state 
of  society,  such,  for  instance,  as  obtained  when  one  and  the  same  carpenter 
did  all  the  work  that  was  necessary  in  the  making  of  a  chair  or  table.  But 
take  conditions  as  they  actually  are:  trace  back  the  history  of  any  chair  in 
your  house  to  the  time  when  the  wood  from  which  it  is  made  was  still  a  part 
of  some  living  tree  in  the  forest  and  you  will  find  that  several  hundred 
hands  had  been  busy  with  it  before  it  reached  your  house.  How  are  you 
going  to  determine  what  share  in  the  price  each  one  of  those  hundreds  is 
entitled  to?  But  I  have  another  objeotion  to  your  scheme:  it  presupposes 
that  labor  is  the  only  source  of  wealth. 

SOCIALIST. — And  so  it  is.   Wealth  can  be  created  only  by  labor. 

CATHOLIC. — Well,  then,  tell  me  why  is  a  chair  made  of  mahogany 
worth  ten  times  more  than  one  made  of  yellow  pine,  though  exactly  the 
same  amount  of  labor  was  required  in  the  manufacture  of  both?  Why  are 
you  willing  to  pay  more  for  fresh  articles  of  food — fruit,  meat,  butter,  eggs, 
etc. — than  for  such  as  are  stale  although  more  labor  was  expended  upon  the 
latter?    Why  were  you  perfectly  sa4:isfied.      pay  your  surgeon  fifty  dollars 


24 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


for  performing  an  operation  which  lasted  scarcely  a  half^hour,  whilst  yon 
paid  your  servant  girl  only  ten  cents,  though  she  labored  a  good  deal  more 
during  the  same  length  of  time  scrubbing  the  kitchen  floor?  But  after  all, 
why  argue  on  this  point?  If  it  is  so  easy  to  determine  the  social  value  of 
each  man's  labor^roduot,  why  don't  you  Socialists  work  out  your  scheme 
in  detail?  Why  can't  you  submit  a  sort  of  scale  of  wages  to  us  workingmen 
so  that  we  may  know  what  to  expect?  I  put  a  lot  of  stock  in  the  two  say- 
ings: "Look  before  you  leap."  *'Don't  leap  in  the  dark."  You  Socialists, 
however,  seem  to  think  that  those  sayings  have  become  obsolete.  You  step 
up  to  us  workmen  as  children  do  in  their  games  and  tell  us:  "We  have 
something  nice  to  eat,  open  your  mouth,  shut  your  eyes,"  and  in  goes  a 
handful  of  red  pepper.  Red  pepper  may  be  nice  to  look  at  from  a  distance, 
but  it  certainly  isn't  very  pleasant  to  the  taste.  Economic  Socialism  is  un- 
doubtedly most  beautiful  and  captivating  in  theory,  but  woe  betide  the  com- 
munity that  endeavors  to  carry  it  out  in  practice. 


VIII. 

Socialism  and  Liberty  in  the  Light  of  History. 

Next  Step  in  the  Evolution  of  Human  Society — A  New  Argument — Over  One 
Hundred  Socialist  Experiments  Failures — Blind   Faith — Straight- 
jacket  of  Socialism — Irresponsible  Democracy — Reign  of 
Terror — New  Australia — History  and  Experience. 

SOCIALIST.' — Jones,  the  objections  and  difficulties  you  have  been  urging 
against  Socialism  are  unsound  and  sophistical;  they  musit  be! 
CATHOLIC— Why?    What  makes  you  think  so? 

SOCIALIST. — If  they  were  not,  it  would  necessarily  follow  that  Capital- 
ism represents  the  last  and  highest  stage  in  the  development  of  human 
society.   Now,  I  cannot  believe  that. 

CATHOLIC. — Neither  do  I  believe  that  society  has  reached  the  last  and 
highest  stage  in  its  development.  But  much  less  do  I  believe  that  Socialiism 
is  the  next.  Socialism,  as  I  have  shown  you,  is  a  beautiful  dream,  but  an 
absolute  impossibility. 

SOCIALIST. — Did  not  the  so-called  wise  men  in  the  days  of  Columbus 
call  his  plan  a  dream,  an  impossibility,  just  as  you  are  calling  Socialism  a 
dream  and  an  impossibility? 

CATHOLIC. — ^No  doubt,  many  did.  But  that  is  no  argument  for  Social- 
ism. If  it  were,  every  charlatan,  crank  and  dreamer  could  appeal  to  it  in 
support  of  his  plans,  no  matter  how  absurd  and  nonsensical  they  might  be; 
if  it  were,  then  you  have  no  right  calling  extreme  Socialists,  I  mean  Com- 
munists, fools,  as  you  did  in  one  of  our  former  discussions.  It  is  true,  people 
did  claim  some  ideas  impracticable,  impossible,  which  have  been  realized 
and  are  a  fact  at  the  present  day;  but  it  is  no  less  true  that  they  claimed 
and  still  claim  and  will  e^er  claim  many  more  ideas  impossible  which  have 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


25 


remajined  impossible  and  will  remain  impossible  to  the  end  of  time.  And 
among  such  impossibles  must  be  classed  Socialism. 

SOCIALIST. — Jones,  aren't  you  begging  the  question? 

CATHOLIC. — Not  in  the  least!  It's  up  to  you  to  prove  the  feasibility 
of  Socialism  and  you  certainly  do  not  claim  to  have  even  attempted  it.  So 
I  do  not  beg  the  question  when  I  deny  it.  Moreover,  in  our  little  investiga- 
tion of  your  Climax  Building  Concern,  of  Socialism,  I  showed  you  that  your 
architects  are  at  loggerheads,  that  your  contractors  are  non-plus sed,  that 
your  superintendents,  assistant-superintendents,  foremen  and  paymasters  are 
all  at  their  wits'  ends.  They  have  thrown  up  their  hands  in  despair  and 
told  us  that  they  do  not  know  how  to  tackle  the  infinitely  complex  tasks 
set  them  by  the  Industrial  Commonwealth.  No,  Smith,  I  cannot  bank  on  a 
proposition  of  that  character,  even  if  I  didn't  know  that  every  attempt  at 
establishing  a  Socialist  community,  and  there  were  more  than  one  hundred, 
proved  a  miserable  failure. 

SOCIALIST. — The  experiments  you  refer  to  were  all  on  a  small  scale. 

CATHOLIC— What  of  it?  If  you  can't  build  a  one-story  house  out  of 
sand,  much  less  will  you  be  able  to  build  a  sky-scraper. 

SOCIALIST. — Be  that  as  it  may.  I  have  pinned  my  faith  to  Socialism 
and  to  Socialism  I  look  for  relief  from  injustice  and  oppression.  Even  iC 
the  worst  does  happen,  to  use  the  words  of  Marx:  "We  have  nothing  to 
lose  but  our  chains."    (Communist  Manifesto,  Chicago,  p.  64.) 

CATHOLIC —Well  said,  Smith;  Socialism  is  a  matter  of  faith,  of  im- 
plicit, childlike,  but  blind  faith.  Do  as  you  please:  if  you  wish  to  leap  in 
the  dark,  I  can't  hold  you  back,  but  don't  expect  me  to  follow.  We  workmen 
are  in  chains,  as  you  say,  but  you  must  admit  that  our  chains  allow  most 
of  us  a  very  coasiderable  amount  of  free  movement,  and  that  conditions  have 
improved  very  much  during  the  last  twenty  years,  and  that  they  will  and 
must  improve  wherever  laborers  are  organized  into  Unions  and  use  the 
ballot  intelligently.  But  for  the  sake  of  argument  I  will  suppose  that  the 
Industrial  Commonwealth  can  be  established.  Do  you  think  you  will  no 
longer  be  in  chains? 

SOCIALIST.— Of  course  I  do. 

CATHOLIC. — Well,  then,  you're  sadly,  very  sadly  mistaken,  as  you  were 
on  so  many  other  points.  We  workmen  will  be  shackled  with  chains  as 
galling  as  the  cruelest  straight-jacket  any  prisoner  ever  wore. 

SOCIALIST.— That's  rubbish,  Jones.  Don't  you  know  that  Socialism 
means  a  democracy? 

CATHOLIC. — Yes,  and  I  know,  too,  that  an  irresponsible  democracy  can 
be  more  cruel  and  brutal  than  the  most  bloodthirsty  tyrant.  Call  to  mind 
•the  horrible  and  harrowing  excesses  the  Socialists  or  Communists,  as  they 
are  more  frequently  called,  perpetrated  in  Paris  only  sixty-five  years  ago,— 
the  murder,  pillage,  robbery  and  other  nameless,  shameless  crimes  that  were 
committed  in  the  name  of  liberty  and  democracy.  Read  the  book,  "Where 
Socialism  Failed,"  by  Stewart  Grahame,  and  learn  of  the  ruthless  tyranny 
and  higih^handed  injustice  that  was  practiced  In  the  Sooialist  experiment  of 


26 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


New  Australia,  begun  under  the  most  favorable  circumstances, — and  them 
judge  for  yourself  if  Socialism  must  not  necessarily  degenerate  into  legalizedi 
ferocity. 

SOCIALIST. — Jones,  don't  try  to  frighten  me  with  your  rhetoric. 

CATHOLIC. — No,  I  am  not  trying  to  frighten  you  with  rhetoric.  I  amv 
stating  and  all  through  our  discussion  have  been  stating  truths  which  are« 
plain  and  apparent  to  everyone,  whose  eyes  are  not  blind  to  facts  and  whos^l 
judgment  is  not  clouded  by  Socialist  prejudice.  I  should  like  to  appeal  toi 
your  intelligence  and,  drawing  the  logical  inferences  from  our  preceding^, 
discussions,  show  you  how  Socialism,  if  it  could  be  established,  must  worki 
out  in  daily  life;  how  it  must  affect  us  workmen  in  our  personal  affairs. 
But  as  long  as  you  refuse  to  accept  history  and  experience  as  a  teacher, 
what  is  the  use? 

SOCIALIST.' — You  have  aroused  my  curiosity,  Jones,  and  I  really  would 
like  to"  see  the  picture  you  intend  to  paint  of  the  Socialist  state.  But  allow 
me  to  suggest  a  little  precaution:  don't  draw  too  generously  on  your  imagi- 
nation, poisoned  as  it  is  against  Socialism,  for  inspiration  and  materials. 

CATHOLIC. — I  beg  your  pardon.  Smith,  but  I  think  your  suggestion  isi' 
utterly  uncalled  for.  Imagination  has  entered  very  little,  if  at  all,  into  my 
share  of  the  discussion.  Every  statement  th^t  I  have  made  was  dictated f 
by  hard  comimon  sense.  If  Socialism  as  an  economic  system  means  salva- 
tion for  us  working-men,  why  should  I  oppose  it?  Why  shouldn't  I  adopt  it^ 
as  an  economic  system? 


IX. 

Socialism  and  Liberty  in  the  Light  of  Theory. 

Absolutistic  Government — Inefficiency  and  Graft  in  Government  Administra-i 
tion — Well  Cared-for  Slaves — Greed  and  Selfishness — Finer 
Instincts — Who  Join? — Who  Shun  the  Socialist  Party? 

SOCIALIST. — We're  getting  off  the  track.  Show  me  how,  in  your  judg- 
ment, based  upon  our  previous  discussions,  Socialism,  If  it  could  be  estab- 
lished, must  affect  us  workingmen  in  our  daily  affairs. 

CATHOLIC. — Very  well.  Remember  you  have  freely  admitted,  or,  at 
least,  you  have  been  forced  to  admit,  that  your  Socialist  government  must 
be  highly  centralized  and  that  it  must  be  vested  with  practically  absolute 
power.  It  will  be  the  only  employer  in  the  country  and  will,  therefore,  dictate 
where  we  must  work,  how  long  we  must  work,  for  how  much  we  must  work 
and  under  what  conditions  of  labor  we  must  work.  It  will  be  the  only  seller 
in  the  market  and  will  fix  the  price  of  goods  and  determine  their  kind  and 
quality,  for  it  need  not  fear  competition,  and  hence  need  not  consider  our 
personal  likes  or  dislikes.  The  government  will  be  the  only  educator  and 
will  prescribe  where  our  children  are  to  be  educated  and  how  they  are  to  be  j 
educated.   It  will,  for  a  long  time,  at  least,  be  our  only  landlord  and,  there- 1 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


27 


fore,  will  oblige  us  to  live  in  that  house  and  under  such  conditions  as  J* 
thinks  best.  The  kind  a^^^  character  of  our  amusements  as  well  as  the  man- 
mer  of  taking  them,  will  be  determined  by  the  government;  as  also  a  hundred 
other  personal  affairs.  To  sum  up:  we  shall  all  become  members  of  a  huge 
[industrial  army  subject  to  the  will  of  individual  officials  or  committees. 

SOCIALIST. — Well,  Jones,  I  don't  see  that  such  an  arrangement  would 
ibe  so  very  bad.  At  any  rate,  the  workingman's  condition  will  be  a  hundred 
times  better  than  it  is  at  present. 

CATHOLIC. — You  seem  to  forget  of  a  sudden  the  Socialist  complaint  that 
the  administration  of  nearly  all  departments  of  the  National,  State  and 
Municipal  governments  is  flagrantly  Inefficient  and  wasteful,  honeycombed 
iwith  graft,  favoritism  and  dishonesty. 

SOCIALIST.— Not  at  all!  We  Socialists  know  full  well  the  leprous  con- 
idition  of  the  government,  and,  by  a  careful  diagnosis  of  the  case,  we  have 
discovered  the  cause,  namely:  Capitalism.  Remove  the  cause  and  the  effects 
will  cease.  As  soon  as  we  get  the  reins  of  government  into  our  hands  we 
will  do  away  with  the  wasteful  and  dishonest  methods  that  prevail  in  the 
administration  of  the  government  and  thereby  sa^'e  the  country  the  hundred 
thousand  million  dollars  which  are  lost  or  stolen  annually;  we  will  usher 
in  an  era  of  thorough-going  efficiency,  sane  economy,  even-handed  justice, 
strict  impartiality,  scrupulous  honesty. 

CATHOLIC. — Even  if  you  Socialists  could  fulfill  your  glorious  promises 
to  the  letter,  I  would  not  vote  for  the  introduction  of  the  Co-operative  Com- 
monwealth. 

SOCIALIST.— Why  not? 

CATHOLIC. — Because  I  would  a  thousand  times  rather  be  a  starving 
freeman  than  a  well  cared-for  slave  of  the  absolutistic  government  I 
described  for  you  a  minute  ago.  But  I  flatly  and  absolutely  deny  that  you 
ihave  any  reason  for  assuming  that  the  officials  of  the  Industrial  Common- 
wealth will  be  a  whit  better  than  are  the  officials  of  our  present  government. 
Not  Capitalism  is  the  last  cause  of  the  inefficiency  and  dishonesty  which,  as 
you  say,  disgrace  our  government,  nor  of  the  robberies,  injustice  and  heart- 
less cruelties  practiced  against  us  workmen  by  the  captains  of  industry,  but 
greed  and  selfishness;  and  what  is  there  in  Socialism  that  can  or  will  curb 
the  greed  and  selfishness  of  man?  I  have  come  in  contact  with  Socialists 
of  every  type  and  description  and,  while  I  gladly  admit  that  some  of  the 
Comrades  are  noble-minded  and  generous-hearted  men  and  women,  I  do 
maintain  that  the  big  majority  are  intellectually  and  morally  of  an  inferior 
type  of  mankind. 

SOCIALIST. — You're  making  a  very  serious  charge  there,  Jones.  On 
what  do  you  base  it? 

CATHOLIC. — As  I  already  indicated:  on  my  own  experience  as  well  as 
on  the  experience  of  others.  Let  me  read  to  you  what  Judge  Cushing  of 
Cincinnati  said  not  long  ago  in  this  connection:  "I  was  judge  in  the  Cin- 
cinnati Court  during  the  summer  term  three  years  ago,  and  we  had  trouble 
in  finding  enough  cases  to  keep  the  court  busy  for  three  weeks.    This  year 


28 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


we  have  been  having  criminal  trials  right  along.  .  .  .  The  increase  in 
number  of  criminals  coming  to  Cincinnati  is  due  to  the  spread  of  Socialism. 
The  teachings  of  this  *ism'  are  such  as  appeal  to  the  criminal  classes."  And 
to  men  of  that  stamp  you  want  me  to  confide  absolute  powers  of  government! 
And  with  the  assistance  of  such  men  and  through  them  you  expect  to  "usher 
in  an  era  of  thorough-going  efiiciency,  sane  economy,  even-handed  justice, 
strict  impartiality,  scrupulous  honesty!'* 

SOCIALIST. — I  admit  that  Socialism  has  attracted  to  its  standard  a  large 
number  of  less  desirable  individuals  who  have  brought  our  organization  into 
disrepute.  But  you  must  remember  that  Socialism  is  a  movement  of  the 
down-trodden  and  oppressed  workingman  and  that  the  finer  instincts  in  many 
of  our  workingmen  have  been  paralyzed  by  the  brutalities  of  Capitalism. 

CATHOLIC. — Your  Comrades  would  feel  highly  flattered  to  hear  you 
speak  that  way  in  their  regard,  and  would  thank  you  for  your  compliments. 
But,  if  Socialism,  as  you  claim,  really  stands  for  what  is  noblest  and  best  in 
man,  justice,  honesty,  etc.,  it  seems  very,  very  strange  to  me  that  those 
principally  should  flock  to  its  standard  in  whom  "ithe  finer  instincts  have 
been  paralyzed,"  whilst  the  workingmen  in  whom  "the  finer  instincts"  are 
most  highly  developed  generally  shun  your  organization  as  they  would  a 
pestilential  menace. 

X. 

Socialism  and  Liberty  in  the  Light  of 
Present  Day  Experience. 

Review   of  Socialist   Leaders — Gathiering   Grapes   of   Tliorns — Leaving  tlie 
Clouds  of  Tlieory  and  Speculation — Socialist  Wire  Pulling — Socialist 
Referendums — Socialist  Steam  Roller  and  Bossism — Boards  of 
Arbitration — Freedom  of  Press — Legalized  Ferocity. 

SOCIALIST. — Now,  don't  forget  that  the  rank  and  file,  who,  as  I  freely 
admit,  do  not  measure  up  to  our  own  ideals,  after  all  is  said  and  done,  have 
little  influence  in  the  higher  councils  of  our  organization  and  that  Socialist 
activities  are  directed  almost  exclusively  by  our  leaders.  The  destinies  of 
our  Party  are  guided  and  shaped  by  them  and  to  them  you  must  look  for 
an  efficient  and  perfectly  honest  administration  of  affairs  under  Socialism. 

CATHOLIC. — I  wish  you  would  tell  me  a  little  more  in  detail  whom  you 
refer  to  when  you  speak  of  Socialist  leaders. 

SOCIALIST. — Why,  to  the  men  who  infiuence  Socialist  thought  and 
action; to  the  editors  of  Socialist  publications,  to  our  writers,  speakers, 
officials,  candidates  for  public  offices,  etc. 

CATHOLIC. — Very  well.  Let  me  recall  a  few  of  those  past  and  present 
leaders  of  your  party  in  this  country  and  then,  putting  aside  your  Socialist 
prejudices  for  a  moment,  judge  for  yourself:  Wilshire,  "Millionaire  Social- 
ist'* editor,  who,  as  Martha  M.  Avery  an  ex-Sooialist  tells  us,  fleeced  the 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


29 


"Dear  Comrades"  by  means  of  his  mining  schemes  and  then  absconded  to 
England  where  he  is  now  living  in  ease  and  comfort  (Common  Cause  II, 
390);  the  Appeal  to  Reason  staff,  which  Goldstein  did  not  hesitate  to  charac- 
terize in  a  public  statement  as  "a  gang  of  rogues"  (Common  Cause  II,  382) 
and  against  whom  Locals  and  Comrades  in  Minnesota  and  Chicago 
have  filed  charges  **for  offering  worthless  land  as  premiums  in  its 
subscription  contests"  (Social  Democrat  Herald);  J.  A.  Wayland,  widely 
known  Socialist  editor  and  founder  of  the  vilest  and  most  scurrilous 
sheet  in  the  country  who  "dreading  to  face  the  humiliation  of  legal  prose- 
.cution  for  an  infamous  offense  deliberately  put  an  end  to  his  life"  (Common 
Cause  II,  774);  Haywood,  member  of  the  Executive  Committee,  who  had 
to  be  expelled  from  the  party  for  his  dishonorable  acts;  Harriman,  member 
of  the  Executive  Council,  who  disgraced  himself  in  connection  with  the 
McNamara  case;  J.  Mahlon  Barnes,  who  was  thrust  upon  the  Socialist 
Party  as  Campaign  manager  for  1912  through  "the  cunning  of  Hillquit" 
(Christian  Socialist,  June  ^7,  *12)  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  had  been  "forced 
to  tender  his  resignation  as  National  Secretary  on  the  ground  that  his  conduct 
in  private  life  proved  him  to  be  a  degenerate,  drunkard  and  libertine"  (The 
Miner's  Magazine);  Morris  Hillquit,  who  made  "a  mad  fight"  for  this  "degen- 
erate, drunkard  and  libertine"  and  so  eloquently  pleaded  "that  reparation 
should  be  made  to  the  convicted  and  self-accused  adulterer  that  he  so  far 
forgot  himself  as  to  state  (falsely)  that  he  made  the  nomination  of  Barnes 
with  the  endorsement  of  the  National  Executive  Committee"  (Christian 
Socialist,  June  27,  '12);  Shoaf,  Socialist  correspondent,  who  outraged  Com- 
rade Untermann's  (a  prominent  Socialist  author)  daughter,  relative  to  whom 
her  employer  stated:  "Until  this  very  day  the  girl  has  not  received  any 
assistance  from  her  relatives"  (Common  Cause  II,  396);  Herron,  Socialist 
writer  and  speaker,  who,  it  has  been  stated  again  and  again  in  the  public 
press,  deserted  his  wife  and  children  (Socialism,  Goldstein-Avery,  p.  279); 
Hagerty,  Socialist  speaker,  an  apostate  priest,  who  counseled  the  miners 
at  Telluride,  Col.,  on  July  3,  1902,  to  loot  the  local  banks  and  stores; 
Berger,  international  secretary,  member  of  the  Executive  Committee,  etc., 
who  scoffs  and  rails  at  everything  we  Catholics  hold  most  sacred  and  who 
advised  every  Socialist  voter  "to  have  a  good  rifle  and  the  necessary  rounds 
of  ammunition  in  his  home  and  be  prepared  to  back  up  his  ballot  with  his 
bullets  if  necessary"  (Social  Democratic  Herald,  July  31,  '09);  TIchener, 
editor,  the  arch-blasphemer;  Debs,  Socialist  presidential  candidate,  who 
"has  spent  his  energy  in  attempting  to  disrupt  the  trade  unions"  and 
"organized  dual  organizations  and  strike-breaking  organizations"  (Collins, 
Why  Socialism  is  Opposed  to  Trade  and  Labor  Unions,  p.  26) ;  practically 
the  whole  Socialist  press  which  is  continually  conducting  a  vile  campaign 
of  deception,  duplicity  and  double-dealing  in  regard  to  Socialism's  real 
attitude  toward  the  family,  morality  and  religion. 

To  close  this  review  of  Socialist  leaders  I  will  quote  a  sentence  from 
one  of  Goldstein's  lectures  which  will  throw  some  light  on  the  character 
of  Socialist  headquarters:    "Rev.  Edwin  Ellis  Carr  was  expelled  'from  the 


30 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


Socialist  party  for  exposing  the  free  love  practice  in  the  national  Socialist 
headquarters."  Now,  Smith,  do  you  sincerely  believe  that  such  men  give 
fair  promise  of  ushering  in  an  era  of  "sane  economy,  even-handed  justice, 
scrupulous  honesty,  absolute  impartiality"  and  that  it  would  be  prudent  on 
our  part  to  entrust  them  with  the  reins  of  an  absolute  government  and  allow 
them  to  wield  full  sway  over  our  personal  affairs? 

SOCIALIST. — Jones,  you're  becoming  personal  and  bitter. 

CATHOLIC. — I'm  becoming  direct,  practical  and  outspoken,  Smith,  in 
the  hope  that  you  may  open  your  eyes  to  the  real  situation.  I'm  coming 
down  from  the  clouds  of  th(?ory  and  speculation  which  you  Socialists 
delight  to  revel  in,  because  they  afford  you  more  room  and  greater  facilities 
for  dodging  and  evading  arguments  and  I  am  looking  at  men  and  affairs  as 
they  really  are,  not  as  they  might  be.  The  child-like,  unquestioning  faith 
and  confidence  which  so  many  of  you  Socialists  place  in  your  leaders  and 
your  movement  would  be  comic  if  it  weren't  so  extremely  tragic. 

SOCIALIST. — It's  mighty  strange  that  we  Socialists  don't  get  wise. 

CATHOLIC. — That  is  one  of  the  tragic  phases  of  the  situation.  But, 
thank  God,  a  good  number  of  the  more  intelligent  and  upright  Comrades, 
particularly  those  whose  finer  instincts  have  not  been  altogether  paralyzed, 
are  beginning  to  realize  that  they  are  duped.  Here  is  what  M.  Mikkelson, 
for  several  years  a  leading  member  of  your  party  in  Milwaukee  and  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Common  Council  under  the  Seidel  administration,  said  in  a  public 
statement  (New  York  Sun,  Dec.  19,  '13)  only  a  few  weeks  ago:  "I  have 
quit  the  party  for  good  because  I  am  tired  of  explaining  things  I  do  not 
believe  in.  I  am  tired  of  the  political  wire  pulling  in  the  Socialist  party. 
They  pull  the  political  wires  just  like  all  other  parties." 

SOCIALIST. — Well,  Jones,  even  granting  that  our  Party  has  as  yet  not 
developed  a  high  type  of  unselfish  and  irreproachable  leaders,  that  doesn't 
argue  against  Socialism. 

CATHOLIC- — There  you  are  again  up  in  the  clouds.  Do  you  ask  me  to 
vote  for  Socialism  in  the  abstract,  or  do  you  ask  me  to  vote  for  the  Socialist 
Party  as  it  is  constituted  here  and  now? 

SOCIALIST. — You  must  bear  in  mind,  Jones,  that  our  platform  provides 
for  the  referendum  and  that  by  its  means  we  can  eliminate  objectionable 
legislation  and  remove  undesirable  men  from  their  offices. 

CATHOLIC. — Listen  to  what  Mikkelson  had  to  say  on  that  point:  "They 
don't  hold  referendums  any  more  like  they  used  to,  so  that  a  majority  of  the 
party  members  can  rule.  Most  of  the  important  matters  are  decided  by 
a  few  ring-leaders  and  we  have  to  go  out  and  stand  for  them."  And  if  you 
wish  to  get  a  further  insight  into  the  character  of  Socalist  referendums, 
study  up  the  Barnes  referendum  and  see  for  yourself  what  a  "huge  farce 
comedy"  it  developed  into.  Open  your  eyes  to  the  facts  of  the  case  and 
you  will  find  that  steam-roller  tactics  and  bossism  are  just  as  prominent  In 
your  party  politics  as  anywhere  else.  But  you  miss  the  point  when  you 
refer  me  to  the  referendum,  because  we  evidently  cannot  have  recourse  to 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


31 


a  referendum  every  time  we  are  unjustly  dealt  with  by  an  official  or  a 
committee. 

SOCIALIST. — Oh,  in  those  cases  you  could  refer  the  matter  to  our 
boards  of  arbitration. 

CATHOLIC. — Made  up,  I  suppose,  by  men  like  Hillquit,  who  "put  up 
a  mad  fight"  for  a  "degenerate,  drunkard  and  libertine'*  and  Barnes  "the 
convicted  and  self-accused  adulterer"  etc.  (Christian  Socialist,  June  27,  '12) 
Little  justice  could  you  expect  at  their  hands.  .  ".  .  But  even  supposing 
that  the  members  of  your  boards  were  absolutely  just,  you  know  as  well  as 
I,  that  a  foreman  or  boss  or  any  ofl^cial,  and  you  are  going  to  have  an  endless 
number  of  them  in  your  Commonwealth,  I  say,  you  know  that  they  can  annoy 
and  harrass  us  in  a  thousand  different  petty  ways  which  we  feel  most 
keenly  but  which  we  cannot  formulate  into  a  charge  that  will  make  a  show- 
ing in  court. 

SOCIALIST. — You  cpuld  expose  oflficials  in  the  papers. 

CATHOLIC. — Not  on  your  life!  The  papers  will  be  owned  and  printed 
by  the  Grovernment  and  a  mighty  silly  Government  it  would  be  which  would 
allow  you  to  use  its  presses  and  papers  to  expose  its  shame.  No,  Smith, 
freedom  of  the  press  would  disappear,  just  as  personal  liberty  would  neces- 
sarily disappear  and  we  would  be  condemned  to  a  state  of  abject  slavery, 
grinding  tyranny  and  legalized  ferocity. 

XI. 

Socialism  and  the  Family. 

Exaggerations — Ignorance   and    Gullibility   of   the    Comrades — Free    Lust — 
Socialist  Authorities — Garbled  Quotations? — John  Spargo's  Methods. 

SOCIALIST. — Jones,  you're  indulging  in  wild  exaggerations.  If,  as  you 
claim.  Socialism  means  "abject  slavery,  grinding  tyranny  and  legalized 
ferocity,'*  how  in  the  world  do  you  explain  the  fact  that  millions  of  our 
liberty-loving  people  are  flocking  to  its  standard? 

CATHOLIC. — In  the  first  place.  Smith,  millions  of  our  people  are  not 
flocking  to  the  Socialist  standard.  In  the  last  presidential  election  your 
party  polled  approximately  900,000  votes,  but  that  does  not  mean  that  there 
are  900,000  Socialists  in  our  country. 

SOCIALIST.— Why  not? 

CATHOLIC. — Because,  as  one  of  your  own  campaign  leaflets  says:  "If 
you're  not  a  member  of  the  Socialist  party  you're  not  a  Socialist."  According 
to  this  rule  you  can  boast  of  only  about  100,000  adherents. 

SOCIALIST. — The  precise  number  does  not  affect  my  argument.  I  ask 
you  again:  how  do  you  explain  the  phenomenon  that  thousands  upon 
thousands  are  willing  to  make  personal  and  material  sacrifices  of  every 
kind  for  a  cause  which  you  assert  means  slavery  and  tyranny? 

CATHOLIC. — Let  me  tell  you  a  story,  Smith.  Many  years  ago  I  was  in 
Chicago  and  while  visiting  tb^  gtock-yards  I  spent  some  time  watching  the 


32 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


arrival  of  cattle  from  the  western  prairies.  When  the  steers  had  been 
collected  in  a  pen  near  the  railroad  track  a  giant  member  of  their  species, 
well  trained  for  his  particular  duties,  was  introduced  among  them.  He 
welcomed  his  cousins  of  the  plain,  spoke  to  them  in  the  steer  language, 
sympathized  with  them  in  the  hardships  they  had  borne  on  their  long 
journey,  and  then  seemed  to  call  on  them:  ^'Comrades,  follow  me!  I  will 
lead  you  to  the  plains  of  liberty,  to  pastures  rich  with  the  sweetest  clover 
you  have  ever  tasted."  The  gate  of  the  pen  was  opened,  the  self-appointed 
leader  started  off  on  a  lively  trot  down  the  alley  of  the  yards  and  his  com- 
rades followed  close  upon  his  heels.  The  new-comers  had  not  gone  very 
far  when  they  found  themselves  enclosed  in  another  pen  near  to  a  slaughter 
house  and  when  they  looked  about  for  their  kind-hearted,  sympathetic 
leader  he  was  not  to  be  found. 

SOCIALIST. — Stop  your  childish  prattle,  Jones.  We  Socialists  have 
brains  and  know  how  to  use  them  and  we  will  not  allow  ourselves  to  be 
duped  as  easily  as  you  imagine. 

CATHOLIC. — That's  just  about  what  those  steers  would  have  answered 
had  anyone  tried  to  tell  them  that  they  were  being  led  to  the  shambles.  It 
will  not  be  difficult  for  me  to  show  you  that  the  story  is  not  so  childish  after 
all,  and  that  to  some  extent  at  least,  it  represents  the  Socialist  situation 
and  therefore  answers  the  question  you  put  to  me. 

SOCIALIST. — Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  rank  and  file  of  the  Socialist 
Party  is  as  unthinking  and  ignorant  and  gullible  as  dumb  animals? 

CATHOLIC. — Your  own  leaders  openly  assert  that  eighty  per  cent,  of 
the  Comrades  do  not  know  what  Socialism  really  means.  Verify  their 
statement  for  yourself.  Ask  any  ten  Socialists,  as  I  have  done,  what  they 
mean  by  Socialism  and  I  venture  to  say  you  will  get  ten  different  answers 
— and  probably  not  one  correct  and  to  the  point.  They  will  tell  you  it  means 
the  golden  age  of  which  poet  and  prophet  sang,  in  which  there  will  be  little 
work  and  much  enjoyment,  a  universal  brotherhood  of  man,  an  era  of 
justice,  freedom,  liberty,  etc.,  etc.  Ask  them  some  of  the  pointed  questions 
I  asked  you  and  they  will  be  as  unable  to  answer  as  you  were.  Their 
ignorance  of  Socialism's  real  nature  will  appear  most  strikingly  if  you  ask 
them  concerning  its  attitude  toward  marriage  and  the  family. 

SOCIALIST. — Now,  Jones,  don't  disgrace  yourself  by  trotting  out  that 
hackneyed,  dishonest  argument  of  Free  Love.  You  know  yourself  that  we 
Socialists  love  our  wives  and  children  as  tenderly  and  affectionately  as  you 
do  and  that  we  would  gladly  shed  the  last  drop  of  blood  for  the  preservation 
of  our  families.  I  can  sincerely  state  that  in  all  the  Socialist  meetings 
which  I  have  attended  I  never  heard  a  single  word  uttered  in  favor  of 
Free  Love. 

CATHOLIC. — You  are  bringing  out  my  contention.  I  maintain  that  the 
majority  of  Socialists  are  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  Socialism  stands  for 
Free  Love,  I  should  say  Free  Lust. 

SOCIALIST,— Do  you,  an  outsider,  know  more  than  we  members  of  the 
organization? 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


33 


CATHOLIC. — That  will  appear  later  on.  In  the  meantime  I  wish  to  ask 
you  a  question.  If  you  intended  to  become  a  Catholic  would  you  rest 
satisfied  with  the  information  that  I  or  any  other  workman  could  give  you 
concerning  our  religion? 

SOCIALIST. — I  think  not.  I  would  read  up  the  approved  authors  of  your 
Church  and  consult  one  or  more  of  your  priests. 

CATHOLIC' — Well,  now,  I  have  done  something  similar  in  regard  to 
Socialism.  I  have  read  up.  your  writers  and  have  found  that  they  advocate 
Free  Love  as  part  and  parcel  of  the  Socialist  system. 

SOCIALIST. — I  wish  you  would  give  me  some  proofs  for  that  statement. 
CATHOLIC. — Very  well.  Let  me  begin  with  the  founders  of  Socialism — 
with  Marx  and  Engels  and  read  a  few  lines  from  their  Communist  Manifesto 
which  is  **still  recognized  the  world  over  as  the  greatest  statement  of  the 
principles  of  the  International  Socialist  Party":  "Bourgeois  marriage  is  in 
reality  a  system  of  wives  and  thus  at  the  most,  what  the  Communists  might 
possibly  be  reproached  with,  is  that  they  desire  to  introduce  in  substitution 
for  a  hypocritically  concealed,  an  openly  legalized  community  of  women. 
For  the  rest,  it  is  self-evident,  that  the  abolition  of  the  present  system 
of  production  must  bring  with  it  the  abolition  of  the  community  of  women 
springing  from  that  system,  i.  e.,  prostitution,  both  public  and  private.'* 
(Authorized  English  Translation,  Chicago,  p.  41.) 

In  "The  Origin  of  the  Family,"  p.  99,  etc.,  likewise  the  joint  work  of  Marx 
and  Engels,  we  find  the  following:  "If  marriage  founded  on  love  alone  is 
moral,  then  it  follows  that  marriage  is  moral  only  as  long  as  love  lasts.  The 
duration  of  an  attack  of  individual  sex  love  varies  considerably  according 
to  individual  disposition,  especially  in  men.  A  positive  cessation  of  fondness 
or  its  replacement  by  a  new  fondness  or  its  replacement  by  a  new  passionate 
love  makes  a  separation  a  blessing  for  both  parties  and  for  society." 

Bebei,  the  great  German  Socialist  leader,  writes:  "In  the  choice  of  love, 
she  is  free,  just  as  man  is  free.  She  wooes  and  is  wooed  and  has  no  other 
inducement  to  bind  herself  than  her  own  free  will.  The  contract  between 
the  two  lovers  is  of  a  private  nature,  as  in  primitive  times,  without  the 
intervention  of  any  functionary.  Should  incompatibility,  disappointment  and 
dislike  ensue,  morality  demands  the  dissolution  of  the  tie  that  has  become 
unnatural,  and  therefore  immoral"  (Woman,"  p.  154). 

Now,  Smith,  tell  me  candidly,  don't  the  passages  I  have  just  read 
advocate  Free  Love,  Free  Lust  and  practically  Sexual  Promiscuity? 

SOCIALIST. — As  you  quoted  them,  they  certainly  do.    But  haven't  you 
torn  those  passages  out  of  their  context? 

CATHOLIC. — I  see,  you  have  read  Sparge  and  you  have  been  deceived 
by  this  passage  in  his  little  popular  treatise,  "The  Socialists.  Who  They 
are  and  What  They  Stand  for":  "Often  these  quotations  are  so  garbled  or 
dishonestly  torn  from  their  contexts  as  to  misrepresent  the  views  of  their 
authors."  By  the  way,  this  is  that  same  Spargo  (member  of  the  National 
Executive  Committee)  who  publicly  stated  in  the  Socialist  Convention  at 
Chicago  in  May,  1910:    "It  is,  indeed,  amusing  to  hear  the  mention  of  morals 


34 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


and  morality  in  a  Socialist  Convention."  Well,  I  challenge  Spargo,  or  any 
other  Socialist  for  that  matter,  to  prove  that  the  passages  I  have  just  quoted 
and  which  are  most  generally  quoted  to  show  that  Socialist  authorities 
advocate  Free  Love,  are  "so  garbled  or  dishonestly  torn  from  their  contexts 
as  to  misrepresent  the  views  of  their  authors."  Unless  that  proof  is  brought, 
Spargo  is  convicted  of  using  those  "despicable  and  dishonest  methods"  of 
which  he  accuses  the  "religious  press." 

xn. 

American  Socialists  and  Free  Love. 

Attitude  of  Socialist   Party — American  Socialist  Writers — Morris  Hillquit's 
Strict  Monogamy — Sexual  Promiscuity- -'By  Their  Fruits  You 
Shall  Know  Them" — A  Revoltingly  Immoral  Move- 
ment— Responsibility  of  the  Individual. 

SOCIALIST. — To  prove  that  Socialism  stands  for  Free  Love  you  quoted 
two  or  three  writers.  Is  it  fair  to  base  a  universal  indictment  upon  such  a 
slender  foundation? 

CATHOLIC. — If  you  wish,  I'll  spend  hours  with  you  reading  similar 
passages  from  the  works  of  other  Socialists.  But  mark  well,  Smith,  I 
selected  your  foremost  writers — 

SOCIALIST. — Foreigners  who  are  dead  and  buried-  - 

CATHOLIC. — Nevertheless  recognized  as  standard  authorities  by  the 
Socialist  Party  of  the  United  States. 

SOCIALIST.— How  do  you  prove  that? 

CATHOLIC— By  the  fact  that  the  Socialist  Party  sells  the  very  works 
from  which  I  have  quoted;  by  the  fact  that  your  party  has  ofiiicially  adopt  3d 
and  recommended  them  as  textbooks  for  the  study  of  Socialism;  by  the 
fact  that  various  schemes  are  resorted  to  to  give  them  the  widest  circulation 
possible. 

SOCIALIST. — But  we  only  advocate  the  economic  views  of  these  writers 
and  not  their  personal  views  regarding  marriage. 

CATHOLIC. — You,  the  rank  and  file,  perhaps,  but  certainly '  not  your 
leaders.  If  they  do  not  advocate  the  free-love  principles  of  Socialist  writers, 
why  don't  they  publish  expurgated  editions  of  their  works?  Why  don't  they 
openly  and  publicly  repudiate  free-love  principles  in  their  National  Con- 
vention as  they  have  been  challenged  to  do  time  and  again? 

SOCIALIST. — That  is  at  best  a  negative  argument. 

CATHOLIC. — But  one  that  establishes  my  point  beyond  doubt  or  cavil. 

SOCIALIST. — It  seems  to  me  that  if  our  American  Socialist  leaders 
were  really  in  sympathy  with  the  free  love  principles  of  foreign  writers,  that 
sympathy  would  manifest  itself  in  their  own  writings. 

CATHOLIC— And  so  it  does.  In  Wilshire's  Magazine  for  June,  1902,  we 
read:  "Socialism  annihilates  family  life.  With  the  abolition  of  private 
property,  marriage  in  its  present  form  must  disappear.    This  is  part  of  the 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


35 


program."  For  similar  views  I  would  refer  you  to  Ernest  Untermann, 
(Preface  to  the  ''Origin  of  the  Family,"  p.  7);  Charles  H.  Kerr,  ("The  Folly 
of  Being  Good,"  p.  23);  M.  C.  Wentworth,  (The  Socialist  Spirit,  Chicago, 
November,  1902);  R.  Sawyer,  (The  Call,  November,  22  1909).  I  do  not  deny 
that  American  Socialist  leaders  have  been  more  reserved  in  expressing 
their  real  sentiments  in  regard  to  marriage  than  the  European  leaders 
because  they  know  full  well  that  "it  does  not  make  a  good  campaign  subject" 
(Delegate  Lewis  in  the  Chicago  Convention).  To  give  you  a  sample  of  the 
sincerity,  honesty  and  straightforwardness  of  your  leaders  in  this  matter 
allow  be  to  instance  Morris  Hillquit,  "a  past-master  in  dodging  questions 
that  must  be  evaded  for  the  good  of  the  movement."  Only  a  few  years  "back 
he  tried  to  have  the  following  plank  inserted  into  the  Socialist  platform: 
"It  (the  Socialist  movement)  is  not  concerned  with  the  institution  of 
marriage"  (Proceedings,  National  Convention  of  the  Socialist  Party,  1908, 
p.  193).  In  this  month's  (February)  issue  of  Everybody's  Magazine,  forced 
by  the  exigencies  of  a  debate,  he  asserts:  "Most  Socialists  stand  for 
dissolubility  of  the  marriage  ties  at  the  pleasure  of  the  contracting  parites 
(p.  233). 

SOCIALIST. — How  dare  you  Interpret  that  last  statement  as  a  defence 
of  free  love? 

CATHOLIC. — Free  love,  according  to  the  dictionary  and  the  general 
acceptation  of  the  term,  means  "the  doctrine  or  custom  of  unrestrained  choice 
in  sex  relations  or  of  promiscuous  sexual  intercourse."  Now  if  the  state- 
ment "marriage  ties  dissoluble  at  the  pleasure  of  the  contracting  parties,"  is 
not  identical  in  meaning  with  "unrestrained  choice  in  sex  relations,"  I  beg 
you  to  show  me  the  difference! 

SOCIALIST. — But  doesn't  Hillquit  state  expressly  that  "Socialists  stand 
for  strict  monogamy"?   (Everybody's  Magazine,  Feb.,  1914,  p.  240). 

CATHOLIC. — "Strict  monogamy  coupled  with  the  right  of  divorce  to 
all  persons  whose  marital  life  has  been  rendered  loveless,  joyless,  and 
miserable  for  any  reason  whatever"  (ibidem) ;  "monogamy  dissoluble  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  contracting  parties."  Accordingly,  under  Socialism,  man  and 
woman,  it  matters  not  how  old  or  how  young  they  are,  may  live  together  a 
life-time,  a  year,  a  month,  a  week  or  less — and  then  separate.  The  only 
factor  which  determines  the  duration  of  their  cohabitation  is  their  "pleasure." 
Now,  if  that  does  not  mean  free  love,  free  lust  and  sexual  promiscuity,  please 
tell  me,  what  does  it  mean? 

SOCIALIST. — Jones,  I  can't  believe  you  are  interpreting  our  leaders 
correctly.  The  statements  you  have  quoted  are  at  most  theoretical  views 
and  opinions  which  will  never  be  carried  out  in  daily  life.  Judge  a  tree  by 
its  fruits. 

CATHOLIC. — It's  very  hard  to  suddenly  face  the  light  when  we  have 
been  in  the  dark  for  a  long  time.  You  ask  me  to  judge  the  tree  by  its 
fruits.  It  is  disgusting  and  humiliating  in  the  extreme  to  rake  up  Socialist 
muck,  but  it  apparently  has  become  necessary  for  me  to  show  you  some  of  the 
unspeakably  vile  fruits  of  the  free  love  doctrines  we  have  just  considered 


36 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


in  order  to  make  you  realize  what  a  revoltingly  immoral  movement  you  are 
unconsciously  abetting  by  belonging  to  the  Sociali&t  Party. 

I  have  already  drawn  your  attention  to  Barnes,  the  former  national 
secretary  of  the  party  under  whose  administration  Socialist  headquarters 
were  called  "The  Harem."  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  had  been  "compelled 
to  resign  from  the  office  of  national  secretary  of  the  Socialist  Party  in 
disgrace,  charged  with  drunkenness,  gross  immorality,  etc.,"  he  had  "the 
ionor  of  handling  the  political  campaign  for  1912"  (The  Miner's  Magazine). 
\s  I  already  stated,  he  owed  his  appointment  to  this  very  important  and 
lucrative  position  to  Morris  Hillquit. 

Other  practical  examples  showing  clearly  what  Socialists  understand  by 
'strict  monogamy"  (Hillquitt)  I  shall  take  from  a  booklet  entitled  "The  Red 
Peril,"  which  was  written  by  one  of  the  foremost  authorities  on  Socialism 
in  this  country.  Rev.  W.  S.  Kress:  "The  daughter  of  Marx,  Elinor,  put  the 
principle  of  free  love  into  practice,  when  she  made  a  lecture  tour  through 
the  United  States,  traveling  as  the  free-love  wife  of  Dr.  Edward  Aveling.  It 
mattered  nothing  to  her  that  her  companion  had  a  wife  living  in  England 
at  the  time.  But  when  this  wife  died  her  lover  married  another,  whereupon 
the  discarded  affinity  committed  suicide." 

George  D.  Herron  entered  into  a  free-love  compact  with  Miss  Carrie 
Rand,  in  1901.  This  compact  was  glorified  by  his  comrades  prominent  in 
Socialist  circles,  and  was  given  wide  publicity  by  an  eulogistic  article  in  the 
International  Socialist  Review,  stylng  it  "A  Socialist  Wedding." 

Artist  Earle  justified  the  repudiation  of  his  wife  and  taking  up  with  ■ 
successive  affinities,  on  the  ground  of  love  being  the  only  bond  of  marriage. 
The  Socialist  press  grew  indignant  when  New  York  hotels  refused  to  harbor 
Maxim  Gorky  and  his  free-love  mate.  The  standard  bearer  of  the  Socialist 
party,  Eugene  V.  Debs,  was  less  particular  than  the  hotel-keepers;  for  he 
wrote  in  The  Worker  (April  28,  1906):  "With  open  arms  and  hearts  attuned  i 
to  love  and  greeting,  we  of  the  proletariat  welcome  Maxim  Gorky  and  his 
wife  to  these  shores.    Only  a  Socialist  would  have  spoken  of  her  as  a  wife.  ; 

Dr.  Antoinette  Konikow  achieved  unenviable  notoriety  when  she  left  her 
husband  to  take  up  life  with  a  youthful  "soul-mate."   The  episode  was  looked 
upon  as  a  very  ordinary  affair  by  her  Red  associates;  for  she  was  elected,  in  \ 
spite  of  her  evil  record,  to  the  National  Woman's  Committee  of  Socialist  ! 
Propaganda  by  the  convention  of  1908. 

Upton  Sinclair  relinquished  his  wife  to  her  paramour,  when  reminded  i 
of  his  own  teaching  by  the  unkempt  poet  of  Kansas.   And  the  free-love  mate 
reminded  the  latter  in  turn,  after  a  few  weeks'  association  with  him,  that  he 
was  her  husband  no  longer,  since  she  had  found  another  whom  she  loved 
better"  (pp.  38,  39). 

These  examples  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  show  you  what  your  leaders  \ 
understand  by  the  Socialist  "monogamous  marriage."  i 

SOCIALIST. — Jones,  I  protest  against  your  unwarranted  generalizations. 
Is  it  fair  and  just  to  besmirch  our  whole  leadership  just  because  a  few  of 
their  number  have  been  detestable  libertines? 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


37 


Catholic. — it  would  be  unfair  and  unjust  to  implicate  your  leadership 
if  the  culprits  I  mentioned  had  been  repudiated  by  them.  But,  as  was 
indicated,  far  from  experiencing  such  a  fate,  their  actions  were  eulogized, 
they  retained  their  positions  of  influence  or  were  advanced  to  more  important 
posts  of  authority  and  power. 

SOCIALIST. — Be  that  as  it  may:  In  any  case  I  repudiate  them  and  all 
those  who  connived  at  their  shameless  deeds.  I  repudiate  the  free-love 
doctrines  of  Socialist  leaders  and  protest  my  sincere  respect  and  high  regard 
for  the  sacredness  of  the  marriage  bond  and  the  christian  character  of  the 
monogamous  family. 

CATHOLIC. — Your  actions  belie  your  words  as  long  as  you  remain  a 
member  of  the  Socialist  Party.  Whatever  assistance  or  patronage  you  give 
the  Socialist  movement  means  so  much  moral  support  and  so  much  appro- 
bation for  those  leaders  whom  you  claim  to  repudiate.  Every  penny  you 
spend  in  the  interests  of  Socialism,  be  it  in  payment  of  membership  dues, 
of  subscriptions  to  Socialist  periodicals,  of  tickets  to  Socialist  lectures  or 
free  donations,  is  so  much  money  spent  in  the  interests  of  a  movement 
whose  object  is  the  disruption  of  the  marriage  bond  and  the  destruction  of 
the  family. 

XIII. 

Socialism  and  Religion. 

Why  Catholics  Oppose  Socialism — Is  Socialism  Merely  an  Economic  System? 
— Spargo's  Deceptive  Parallel — The  Last  Appeal — History  of  the 
Plank  on  Religion — Mendacity  and  Hypocrisy — Policy  and 
Expediency  vs.  Truth  and  Honesty — Q.  E.  D. 

SOCIALIST. — You  Catholics  make  me  sick  and  sore.  You're  everlast- 
ingly finding  fault  with  Socialism.  Everyone  of  your  priests  thinks  he  must 
take  a  fling  at  it  and  all  your  publications  are  black  with  denunciations 
of  it.    But  what  are  you  doing  for  the  working-class? 

CATHOLIC. — The  reason  why  we  Catholics  in  general  and  our  priests 
and  our  press  in  particular  so  strenously  oppose  Socialism  is  not  far  to  find 
and  ought  to  be  apparent  to  you  after  our  last  discussion  on  Socialism  and 
Morality.  We  Catholics  believe  that  Socialism  is  doing,  and  will  continue 
to  do  more  harm  to  our  Church  and  to  religion  in  general,  than  all  our  other 
enemies  put  together;  on  the  one  hand,  because  it  is  so  insidious,  and  on 
the  other,  because  it  is  spreading  such  baneful  doctrines.  Posing  as  the  only 
friend  and  savior  of  the  working-class,  it  poisoias  the  hearts  and  minds  of 
its  deluded  victims  with  a  material  philosophy  of  life  which  admits,  of  no 
God,  no  soul,  no  free  will,  no  hereafter.  It  ridicules  the  sublime  teachings 
of  our  faith,  maligns  and  slanders  our  clergy  and  vilifies  us  workmen  who 
refuse  to  adopt  its  revoltingly  immoral  system. 

SOCIALIST.— That's  all  talk,  Jones,  all  talk  and  I'll  prove  it  to  you. 
Socialism  means  the  "national  ownership  of  the  industrial  tools."  Examine 


38 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


that  definition  as  closely  as  you  please  and  you  will  find  that  Socialism  has 
no  relation  whatever  to  religion;  has  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

CATHOLIC. — Now,  Smith,  don't  try  to  lead  me  off  into  the  realm  of 
Socialistic  abstractions.  We  are  not  concerned  with  some  theoretical  or 
possible  system  of  Socialism  but  with  the  Socialism  advocated  and  defended 
by  present-day  Socialists  the  world  over,  no  matter  how  you  define  it. 

SOCIALIST. — Precisely;  and  that  Socialism  has  absolutely  nothing  to 
do  with  religion;  it  is  a  purely  economic  system  merely  seeking  industrial 
readjustment. 

CATHOLIC. — Let's  call  in  a  few  Socialist  authorities  to  decide  the  point 
at  issue. 

Karl  Marx  says:  "We  shall  do  well  if  we  stir  hatred  and  contempt 
against  all  existing  institutions;  if  we  make  war  against  all  prevailing  ideas 
of  religion.  . . .  The  idea  of  God  is  the  keystone  of  perverted  civilization." 
("Secret  Society  in  Switzerland.") 

Frederick  Engels:  "Three  great  obstacles  block  the  path  of  social 
reform — private  property,  religion,  and  the  present  form  of  marriage." 
("Secret  Society  in  Switzerland.") 

Wilhelm  Liebknecht:  "It  is  our  duty  as  Socialists  to  root  out  the  faith 
in  God  with  all  our  zeal,  nor  is  anyone  worthy  of  the  name  who  does  not 
consecrate  himself  to  the  spread  of  atheism." 

August  Bebel:  "We  wish  in  politics,  the  republic;  in  economy,  Socialism, 
and  in  religion,  atheism"  (German  Diet,  Dec.  31,  '81).  "Christianity  and 
Socialism  are  like  fire  and  water"  (Christianity  and  Socialism). 

"The  Call,"  March  2,  1911:  "There  is  nothing  to  be  gained  by  holding 
out  false  hopes  that  a  study  of  Socialism  does  not  tend  to  undermine  religi- 
ous beliefs.  The  theory  of  economic  determinism  alone,  if  thoroughly 
grasped,  leaves  no  room  for  a  belief  in  the  supernatural." 

Isador  Ladoff,  in  "International  Socialist  Review,  August,  1908:  "Religion 
spells  death  to  Socialism,  just  as  Socialism  spells  death  to  religion.  . . .  The 
thinking  Socialists  are  all  free-thinkers." 

Geo.  D.  Herron,  secretary  to  the  International  Congress  of  Socialists,  in 
"The  Worker,"  March  30,  1902:  "Christianity  today  stands  for  what  is 
lowest  and  basest  in  life.  It  is  the  most  degrading  of  all  our  'institutions 
and  the  most  brutalizing  in  its  effects  on  the  common  life.  For  Socialism  to 
use  it,  to  make  terms  with  it,  or  let  it  make  approaches  to  the  Socialistic 
movement,  is  for  Socialism  to  take  Judas  to  its  bosom." 

Smith,  should  I  ask  some  more  Socialist  authorities  for  their  testimony? 

SOCIALIST. — Save  yourself  the  trouble,  Jones;  I  don't  deny  that  there 
are  many  atheists  within  the  Socialist  ranks,  but  I  do  deny  that  you  are 
justified  in  concluding  from  this  fact  that  Socialism  is  atheistic  or  anti- 
religious.  It  would  be  just  as  logical  and  fair — I  should  say,  Illogical  and 
unfair — to  argue  that  the  Republican  Party  is  atheistic  and  anti-religious 
because  there  are  many  free-thinkers  among  the  Republicans.  Spargo 
rightly  dismisses  your  argument  with  the  remark:  "Such  cowardly  and 
dishonest  methods  of  attack  are  unworthy  of  serious  considei ''^ion." 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


39 


CATHOLIC. — You  are  quoting  Spargo  who  deceived  .you  in  regard  to 
ISocialism's  real  attitude  toward  marriage  and  the  family;  that  "gentleman" 
who  had  to  enlighten  one  of  the  delegates  to  the  Chicago  convention,  May, 
11910,  on  the  utter  absurdity  of  such  a  thing  as  morals  and  morality.  Listen 
)to  what  this  same  Spargo  had  to  say  on  another  occasion  relative  to  the 
matter  under  discussion:    "It  is  easier  so  to  act,  than  to  affirm,  what  in  our 
very  souls  we  feel  to  be  true,  that  Socialism,  as  an  ethical  interpretation  of 
I  life,  is  far  removed  from  Christianity  and  of  infinitely  greater  beauty  and 
i  worth.   . . .   Socialism    christianized  would  be  Socialism  emasculated  and 
destroyed"  (The  Comrade,  May,  1903).    Of  course  it  would  be  unfair  and 
illogical  to  argue  that  the  Republican  Party  is  atheistic  and  anti-religious 
jjust  because  some  of  its  members  are  free-thinkers;  but  if  the  foremost 
\  leaders  of  that  party  were  to  tell  us  that  it  is  atheistic  and  anti-religious,  and 
I  this  happens  in  the  case  of  Socialism,  wouldn't  we  be  allowed  to  take  their 
word  for  it? 

SOCIALIST. — If  they  spoke  in  an  official  capacity,  yes;  but  not  if  they 
i  merely  voiced  personal  opinions  as  do  the  Socialist  authorities  you  quoted 
a  few  minutes  ago.  I  demand,  and  demand  it  in  all  fairness  and  justice, 
that  you  judge  the  Socialist  Party  exclusively  by  its  official  utterances,  by 
its  platform.  Now,  our  platform  states  expressly:  "The  Socialist  Party  is 
primarily  an  economic  and  political  movement.  It  is  not  concerned  with 
the  institution  of  religion." 

CATHOLIC- — Smith,  if  you  knew  the  history  of  that  plank  you  would 
hesitate  a  long  time  before  appealing  to  it  as  an  argument. 

SOCIALIST.— Why  so? 

CATHOLIC. — Let  me  tell  you  how  it  found  its  way  into  your  plaftorm. 
It  was  formulated  by  the  past-master  in  Socialist  tactics,  Morris  Hillquit, 
and  after  a  heated  debate  was  finally  adopted  by  a  majority  of  one  vote 
I  (Proceedings,  p.  205).    Of  the  157  delegates,    78   who    had    the  courage 
of   their   convictions    and   were   not   of    the   vote-angling   type,  bitterly 
j  opposed  the  insertion  of  the  "religion  plank"  on  the  ground  that  it  was 
f  an  unmitigated  lie  and  an  impudent  piece  of  the  rankest  hyprocisy..  To 
I  quote  from  delegate  Van  der  Porten's  speech:    "Let  us  say  nothing  or  say 
the  truth.    To  spread  forth  to  the  world  that  religion  is  the  individual's 

affair  we     lie    when   we  say    it"    (Proceedings,    p.    204).  Strickland, 

another  delegate,  dumbfounded  his  opponents  by  fiinging  this  question  into 
their  faces:  "If  economic  determinism  be  true  and  if  the  n*>oral  and  ethical 
principles  of  society  be  based  upon  the  economic  manner  of  production,  how 
dare  you,  then,  say  that  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  religion?"  Delegate 
Lewis  gave  expression  to  his  outraged  sense  of  honesty  in  a  harangue  on 
"truthfulness,"  from  which  I  will  take  the  following:  "But  if  we  must 
speak,  I  propose  that  we  shall  go  before  the  people  of  this  country  with 
the  truth  and  not  with  a  lie.  . . .  Now,  I  do  not  propose  to  state  in  this 
platform  the  truth  about  religion  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Socialist 
philosophy  as  it  is  stated  in  almost  every  book  of  standard  Socialist  litera- 
ture; but  if  we  do  not  do  that,  let  us  at  least  have  the  good  grace  to  be 


40 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


silent  about  it,  and  not  make  hypocrites  of  ourselves"  (Proceedings,  pp. 
191,  192). 

But  truth  and  honesty  had  to  yield  to  "policy  and  expediency."  In  the 
opinion  of  Hillquit,  who  openly  confessed  that  "ninety-nine  per  cent,  of  us 
(Socialists)  have  landed  in  the  same  spot"  (agnosticism)  (Proceedings,  p. 
193);  Hunter  and  other  defenders  of  the  plank,  it  was  necessary  for  cam- 
paign purposes  to  declare  that  Socialism  is  not  concerned  with  religion, 
and  that  it  would  be  infamously  bad  policy  to  tell  the  people  at  large  that 
religion  and  Socialism  are  antagonistic. 

This  may  sound  "fishy"  to  you,  but  listen  to  what  delegate  Unterman 
had  to  say:  "Would  you  expect  to  go  out  among  the  people  of  this  country, 
people  of  different  religious  factions,  and  tell  them  that  they  must  become 
atheists  before  they  can  become  Socialists?  That  would  be  nonsense.  We 
must  first  get  these  men  convinced  of  the  rationality  of  our  economic  and 
political  program,  and  then,  after  we  have  made  Socialists  of  them  and 
members  of  the  Socialist  Party,  we  can  talk  of  the  higher  philosophy  and 
of  the  logical  consequences  of  our  explanation  of  society  and  nature.  . . . 
Therefore,  I  ask  you  to  retain  this  plank  in  our  platform"  (Proceedings, 
p.  194). 

Smith,  compare  these  words  of  one  of  your  recognized  leaders  with  a 
statement  I  made  in  our  opening  discussion,  the  statement  at  which  you 
took  so  much  offense.  I  said:  "You  (Socialists)  hold  back  from  the  unsus- 
pecting inquirer  every  feature  of  your  system  that  might  shock  his  Christian 
sense  of  justice  and  morality  and  make  him  believe  that  Socialism  means 
certain  reform  measures  which  are  not  distinctively  Socialistic.  And  when 
you  finally  succeed  in  trapping  your  victim,  by  fair  means  or  foul,  you 
inoculate  him  with  the  poison  of  discontent,  infidelity  and  hatred  of  religion. 
And  when  this  poison  has  taken  effect,  he  is  ready  to  be  instructed  In  the 
real  meaning  of  Socialism." 

Now,  Smith,  be  honest  with  yourself  and  confess  that  you  have  been 
duped.  Socialist  leaders  tell  you  so.  Take  their  word  fop  It  if  mine  isn't  good. 


XIV. 

The  Catholic  Church  and  the  Toilers. 

Why   Is   a   Socialist? — Catholics   Lead    in   the  Fight  Against  Socialism- 
Socialism    the    Laborer's    Enemy — Disrupts  His    Unions — Robs  His 
Money — Opposes    His    Interests  —  Debases    His    Nature — Positive 
Work  of  the  Church  for  the  Laborer — His  Greatest  Benefactor. 

SOCIALIST. — I  am  cornered.  I  must  admit  you  have  me  on  the  hip.  But 
really,  Jones,  most  of  us  Comrades  are  not  in  the  Socialist  Party  because  we 
believe  in  its  economic,  moral  or  religious  theories — why,  we  ourselves 
haven't  got  a  clear  Idea  of  what  they  are  and  don't  bother  our  heads  very 
much  about  them  either — we're  Socialists  mainly  because  the  Socialist  Party 
most  fearlessly  and  courageously  voices  our  protest  against  injustice  and 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


41 


i  oppression  and  because  it  gives  the  most  definite  expression  to  our  aspiration 
after  a  better  order  of  things.  Show  us  a  better  way!  Give  us  a 
better  champion!  Answer  this  question:  What  are  you  Catholics  doing  for 
the  working-classes?  What  are  your  aims  and  purposes  in  their  regard?  I 
say,  answer  this  question,  answer  it  satisfactorily  and  I  shall  have  done  with 
Socialism. 

CATHOLIC. — With  the  little  time  at  our  disposal,  I  can  give  you  only  a 
very  imperfect  idea  of  all  that  the  Catholic  Church  is  doing  for  us  toilers. 
Of  course  you  know  that  Catholics  are  leading  the  fight  against  Socialism. 
Now,  we  believe  that  we  are  thereby  doing  the  working-class  an  inestimable 
service. 

SOCIALIST. — That  you  are  fighting  Socialism  and  fighting  it  more  suc- 
cessfully than  any  other  organization,  all  Socialists  know  full  well,  and  it  is 
for  this  very  reason  that  they  hate  you  so  cordially;  that  they  are  fighting 
you  in  turn.  I  know  from  experience  that  they  are  as  active  as  the  most 
bigoted  Protestants  in  spreading  anti-Catholic  literature,  particularly  the 
**Menace,"  and  that  they  are  always  on  the  alert  for  opportunities  to  discredit 
Catholic  beliefs  and  institutions  and  to  withdraw  the  working-men  from  the 
influence  of  their  priests.  Socialists  feel  that  the  Catholic  Church  is  the 
one  great  enemy  whom  they  must  dispose  of,  or  at  least  cripple  and  disable, 
before  they  can  hope  to  attain  ultimate  success.  But  how  can  you  interpret 
your  fight  against  Socialism  as  an  inestimable  service  to  the  working-class? 

CATHOLIC. — Because,  far  from  being  the  laborers  friend.  Socialism  is 
its  most  .insidious  enemy.  I  have  already  shown  you  what  an  in^- 
praoticable,  impossible  economic  system  it  is;  how  revoltingly  immoral  and 
bitterly  anti-religious.  But  even  from  a  bread-and-butter  standpoint  it  is 
doing  the  toilers  incalculable  harm.  Socialists  are  straining  every  fiber  to 
destroy  those  organizations  which  "have  probably  done  more  for  the  better- 
ment of  the  working  population  than  all  other  agencies  combined,  with  the 
exception  of  religion"  (Father  Ryan)  I  mean  the  Trade  Unions,  for,  In 
the  opinion  of  the  Socialist  presidential  standard-bearer,  Eugene  V.  Debs, 
'Trade  unions  are  an  unmitigated  evil  and  a  crime  against  the  workers.' " 
(Int.  Soc.  Review,  Feb.,  1911).  Socialists  are  continually  opposing 
efforts  made  for  the  betterment  of  the  laborers,  because  "the  Socialist 
Party  is  not  a  party  of  reform  but  of  revolution"  (C.  E.  Russell,  Socialist 
candidate  for  governor  of  New  York,  Sept.  7,  1912) ;  and  because  it  is  their 
avowed  policy  "to  keep  the  wounds  of  the  body  social  in  a  festering  condi- 
tion" (Bebel).  Socialism  never  put  a  penny  into  the  pay-envelope  of  the 
worker,  but  robbed  him  of  many  a  hard-earned  dollar  by  demanding 
fees  for  calamity-howling  propagandists,  by  securing  payment  for  im- 
moral, scurrilous,  blasphemous,  revolutionary  literature,  by  exacting  mem- 
bership dues  which  eventually  landed  in  the  pockets  of  grasping  leaders  who 
are  not  of  the  working-class,  and  whose  names  have  become  by-words  for 
free  lust,  revolution,  blasphemy.  Socialism  never  even  attempted  to  develop 
the  nobler  instincts  and  finer  qualities  in  the  working-man.    Its  appeal  is 


42 


JONES  AKfE)  gMittl  Discuss  sogiaUsm. 


ever  directed  to  his  lower  f^li^sions;  it  robs  him  of  peace  and  content- 
ment  and  sows  in  his  heart  hatred,  suspicion,  rancor  and  enmity. 

socialist. — LfOoking  back  upon  my  past  experience,  I  confess  that  there 
is  much  truth  in  what  you  say.  But,  tell  me,  what  is  your  Church  doing  in 
a  positive  way  for  the  laboring  classes. 

CATHOLIC. — The  Catholic  Church  is  the  one  great  organization  which 
almost  alone  and  single-handed,  persistently  and  insistently  defends  the 
highest  and  noblest  title  of  every  toiler:  "man  made  in  the  image 
of  his  Creator,  a  child  of  God  redeemed  by  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,"  and 
she  absolutely  condemns,  utterly  repudiates  and  indignantly  repels  attempts 
of  Socialists  and  materialist  writers  and  professors  who  would  degrade  us 
to  the  level  of  the  brute  and  make  of  us  the  chance  product  of  a  blind  force. 
She  vindicates  and  ever  insists  upon  those  fundamental  principles  which 
she  bequea;thed  to  mankind  and  from  which  our  most  cherished  rights 
and  prerogatives  proceed:  the  essential  equality  of  all  men  and  the  inviolable 
sacredness  of  each  individual.  The  Catholic  Church  safeguards  our  dearest 
and  highest  treasures:  our  families,  our  nobler  impulses  and  aspirations 
after  virtue,  particularly  justice,  charity  and  chastity,  and  the  "mighty 
hopes  which  make  us  men"  and  without  which  material  prosperity  would 
be  an  empty  delusion  and  a  hollow  mockery. 

SOCIALIST. — What  a  contrast  with  the  low,  debasing  principles  and 
tendencies  of  Socialism!  I  begin  to  appreciate  the  force  and  value  of  Gath- 
olic  claims  that  the  truths  and  principles  you  mentioned  were  instrumental 
in  raising  the  laboring  classes  from  the  state  of  slavery,  in  elevating  woman 
from  the  deep  degradation  to  which  she  had  fallen  in  paganism,  ancient  and 
modern,  and  in  establishing  democracy.  I  realize,  too,  that  these  same  prin- 
ciples find  their  concrete  expression  in  the  numberless  institutions  of  Catholic 
charity;  in  your  schools,  hospitals,  homes  for  the  poor  and  aged,  asylums  for 
the  orphan,  the  cripple,  the  defective,  refuges  for  the  fallen,  etc.,  etc.  But, 
what  I  am  particularly  anxious  to  know,  is  their  detailed  and  specific  appli- 
cation to  our  present  social  conditions.  You  are  fully  aware  of  the  fact  that 
the  working-class  is  not  so  much  demanding  charity  but  rather  justice.  To 
put  my  question  more  pointedly:  what  is  the  Catholic  solution  of  the  Social 
Problem? 

V 

XV. 

Specific  Application  of  Catholic  Principles. 

Social  Problem  Defined — Catholic  Principles  and  Production — Economy  and 
Efficiency — The  Goal — Catholic  Principles  and  Distribution — Justice  and 
Charity — Protecting  the  Laborer — Curbing  the  Power  of  the  Rich 
— Catholic  Social  Activities — Social  Sense — School — Platform 
— Press — Catholic  Federation — Individual  Responsibility. 

CATHOLIC. — ^If  you  promise  to  make  generous  allowances  for  my 
l)er8onal  limitations,  and  if  you  will  bear  in  mind  that  I  am  not  authorized  to 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


43 


speak  in  the  name  of  my  co-religionists,  but  that  1  am  merely  giving  you 
the  results  and  fruits  of  my  reading  and  study  of  Catholic  authors,  I  will 
undertake  to  answer  your  question.  Speaking  in  general  terms  we  may 
say  that  the  Social  Problem  is  the  problem  enabling  all  classes  of  human 
society  to  obtain  a  proper  and  just  share  of  the  goods  of  this  earth  and  that 
it  accordingly  embraces  the  problems  of  production  and  distribution. 

SOCIALIST. — I  see  the  point.  If  all  classes  are  to  obtain  a  proper  amount 
of  material  goods,  these  goods  must  be  produced  in  sufficient  quantities,, 
and,  if  we  all  are  to  obtain  a  just  share  of  them,  they  must  be  distributedi 
equitably. 

CATHOLIC. — Applied  to  production,  the  Christian  truths  and  principles'^ 
I  mentioned,  give  expression  to  the  watchword  "Economy  and  Efficiency^''  and 
to  the  following  imperative  demands: 

Cut  down  our  vice  and  crime  bill  (which,  from  a  money  point  of  view 
alone,  runs  into  many  millions  each  day),  and  develop  the  principle  factor  in 
production,  the  individual,  by  means  of  religion  and  education. 

Cut  down  our  alcohol  bill  (several  billions  per  year  in  money  not  to 
speak  of  impaired  efficiency,  wrecked  individuals  and  homes,  etc.),  by  means 
of  religious  education  and  proper  restriction  of  the  alcohol  traffic. 

Cut  down  our  idleness  bill:  voluntary  idleness,  through  the  establishment 
of  labor  colonies;  involuntary  idleness  through  compulsory  arbitration,  trade 
agreements,  etc.,  if  occasioned  by  strikes,  lockouts — through  labor  exchanges 
if  occasioned  by  fluctuations  in  the  market. 

Cut  down  our  sickness  bill  by  establishing  National,  State  and  Municipal 
Boards  of  Health,  by  enforcing  pure  food  laws  and  by  education. 

Cut  down  our  waste  bill  in  households  by  proper  training  and  by  re- 
ducing capital  and  labor  consumed  in  luxurious  living  and  display. 

Increase  efficiency  in  the  operation  of  our  factories,  shops,  farms,  rail- 
ways, mines,  in  the  construction  of  buildings  and  other  permanent  works, 
and  in  the  distribution  of  products  among  the  consumers.  The  principal  means 
to  this  end  is  vocational  and  industrial  training. 

Increase  efficiency  of  the  farmer  by  establishing  credit  unions  and 
facilitating  the  marketing  of  farm  products. 

SOCIALIST. — I  did  not  suspect  that  your  general  principle  could  be 
translated  into  such  specific  applications  to  the  problem  of  production.  They 
certainly  go  to  the  root  of  many  of  our  evils.  Still,  I  think  you  are  willing 
to  admit  that  in  spite  of  our  incalculable  extravagance  and  wasteful  pro- 
digality we  produce  enough  to  satisfy  all  reasonable  demands  of  every  in- 
dividual, but  that  our  products  are  not  equitably  distributed.  How  can  your 
principles  be  effectively  applied  to  the  problem  of  distribution? 

CATHOLIC. — First  of  all,  I  wish  to  point  out  the  goal  toward  which  they 
lead.  No  democracy  can  long  exist  if  the  majority  of  its  citizens  are  hired 
men,  and  therefore  economic  and  social  conditions  must  be  so  arranged  as 
to  enable  the  farmer  to  own  the  soil  he  tills  and  the  worker  to  own  the  tools 
with  which  he  works.  In  other  words,  establishments  should  be  owned  and 
operated  by  the  men  and  women  who  actually  work  in  them,  not  by  absentee 


44 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


stock-holders,  as  is  the  case  under  Capitalism,  nor  by  the  community  at 
large,  as  Socialism  demands. 

SOCIALIST. — But  how  do  you  ever  intend  to  bring  about  such  an  ideal 
and  much-to-be-desired  arrangement? 

CATHOLIC. — Personally,  I  see  no  valid  reason  why,  when  conditions  and 
circumstances  are  more  favorable,  the  same  means  which  are  being  so  suc- 
cessfully employed  to  give  their  land  back  to  the  Irish,  could  not  also  be 
employed  to  put  the  toilers  in  possession  of  the  establishments  in  which 
they  toil. 

SOCIALIST. — I  do  not  know  what  the  means  are  that  you  refer  to. 

CATHOLIC. — The  English  government  advances  money  to  the  Irish  ten- 
inant  at  a  low  rate  of  interest  which  enables  him  to  buy  out  the  landlord  who 
,is  compelled  by  law  to  sell. 

SOCIALIST. — Of  course  you  don't  expect  to  realize  this  plan  in  the  near 
:future,  do  you? 

CATHOLIC. — Many  years  will  pass  before  our  ideal  is  attained  in  its 
•entirety.  Much  must  still  be  done  to  enlighten  the  minds  of  our  people,  to 
quicken  the  social  conscience,  to  prepare  and  train  the  worker  for  the  en- 
larged responsibilities  that  await  him.  However,  the  multiplying  instances 
»of  co-operative  societies,  of  co-partnership,  of  the  admission  of  labor  to  the 
•management  and  control  of  business,  which  we  witness  on  all  sides,  indicate 
rthat  we  are  moving  toward  the  ideal. 

SOCIALIST. — And  what  are  your  plans  for  the  immediate  future? 

CATHOLIC. — The  problem  of  an  equitable  distribution  of  the  goods  of 
^this  earth  is  really  a  problem  of  equalizing  the  struggle  for  existence  in 
which  one  class,  the  powerful  rich,  have  obtained  unfair  advantages  over 
'their  competitors,  the  powerless  poor. 

SOCIALIST. — Very  well  put.  And  how  do  you  intend  to  equalize  the 
struggle? 

CATHOLIC. — Applying  our  principles  to  this  phase  of  the  problem  we 
obtain  the  watchword:  "Justice  and  Charity,"  and,  in  accordance  with  its 
^  spirit,  demand,  first  of  all,  that  the  weaker  party  in  the  struggle  be  protected 
-against  further  unjust  exploitation,  and  to  achieve  this  purpose  we  insist 
upon  the  passage  and  strict  enforcement  of  laws  providing  for  a  Living 
Wage,  insurance  against  sickness,  accidents,  unemployment,  old  age,  an  eight- 
hour  work  day,  Sunday  rest,  safe  and  sanitary  working  conditions,  restriction 
of  work  by  women  and  children,  proper  housing. 

SOCIALIST. — Have  you  any  definite  plans  for  preventing  a  few  favored 
individuals  from  gaining  unfair  advantages  over  the  rest  of  the  community? 

CATHOLIC. — Certainly.  Here  ,too,  we  have  recourse  to  legislation  and 
demand  laws  prohibiting  speculation  on  the  exchange  and  precluding  the 
transfer  of  government  mineral  and  forest  lands  to  private  parties. 

SOCIALIST. — And  how  will  you  curb  the  power  which  many  corporations 
possess  and  use  to  exploit  and  oppress  the  laborer  and  consumer? 

CATHOLIC. — In  accordance  with  Catholic  principles  we  demand  that 
all  workless  capital  be  subjected  to  the  usury  laws  in  order  to  prevent 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


45 


capitalists  from  obtaining  an  unjust  and  unreasonable  rate  of  interest  on 
their  actual  investment. 

SOCIALIST. — Such  legislation  would  put  an  immediate  stop  to  our 
modern  legalized  robbery.  Could  you  suggest  some  specific  methods  for 
obtaining  this  result? 

CATHOLIC. — In  case  of  natural  monopolies,  such  as  railroads,  telegraphs, 
telephones,  street  railways  and  other  public  utilities,  the  government  should 
regulate  rates  and  charges  or  take  over  their  ownership;  other  monopolies 
or  trusts  should  be  divided  up  into  a  sufficient  number  of  parts  so  as  to 
insure  actual  competition.  If  this  cannot  be  obtained  the  government  should 
fix  maximum  prices  or  compete  with  the  exploiters  by  entering  into  their 
respective  fields  of  mercantile  endeavor. 

SOCIALIST. — One  more  question.  How  do  you  expect  to  decentralize 
wealth? 

CATHOLIC. — Principally  by  means  of  a  more  rational  system  of  taxa- 
tion. Taxes  should  be  gradually  removed  from  the  necessaries  of  life  and 
improvements  and  placed  where  they  belong — upon  land,  inheritances,  in- 
comes, and  especially  upon  the  unearned  increment  of  land  values. 

SOCIALIST. — I  frankly  confess  I  never  even  suspected  that  you  Catholics 
had  such  a  comprehensive,  reasonable,  satisfactory  solution  of  the  Social 
Problem,  and  I  am  sure  that,  if  Socialists  generally  knew  of  it,  many  of  them 
would  turn  their  backs  upon  the  Party,  provided  they  could  be  assured  that 
you  are  really  in  earnest  about  carrying  out  your  plans. 

CATHOLIC. — Our  activities  at  present  consist  first  of  all  in  developing  a 
''Social  Sense"  in  our  Catholic  people.  Interest  in  the  Social  Problem  is 
being  aroused,  attention  is  constantly  called  to  the  grave  responsibility  that 
rests  upon  every  Catholic  to  "put  his  hand  to  the  work  which  falls  to  his 
share,  and  that  at  once  and  straightway,  lest  the  evil  which  is  already  so 
great  become,  through  delay,  beyond  remedy"  (Pope  Leo).  As  a  powerful 
means  to  this  end,  Catholic  toilers  are  urged  to  become  active,  energetic 
members  of  unions  and  every  Catholic  citizen  is  impressed  with  the  para- 
mount importance  of  his  sacred  obligations  as  a  citizen  in  the  matter  of  cast- 
ing his  ballot,  watching  the  actions  of  those  who  represent  him  in  the  legis- 
lative bodies  of  city,  state  and  country  and  insisting  upon  the  strict  enforce- 
ment of  laws  which  have  been  passed  for  the  benefit  of  the  laborers. 

SOCIALIST. — May  I  ask  how  you  are  striving  to  obtain  these  various 
purposes? 

CATHOLIC. — By  proper  training  in  our  schools,  particularly  our  high 
schools  and  colleges,  by  arranging  lectures  on  social  topics,  organizing  study- 
clubs,  conducting  social  study  courses,  etc.,  but  especially  by  enlisting  the 
services  of  the  press.  In  this  connection  I  should  like  to  call  attention  to  the 
hundreds  of  books  and  pamphlets  bearing  on  social  subjects  which  are  being 
spread  throughout  the  country;  to  the  splendid  social  press  service  of  the 
Catliolic  Federation,  whereby  many  hundred  thousand  readers  are  reached 
every  week;  to  the  two  periodicals  devoted  exclusively  to  the  Social  Prob- 
lem: "The  Live  Issue,"  an  excellent  penny  weekly,  published  in  New  York, 


46 


JONES  AND  SMITH  DISCUSS  SOCIALISM. 


131  E.  Twenty-third  Street;  and  the  "Central  Blatt  and  Social  Justice,"  a 
scholarly  monthly  published  in  St.  Louis,  Temple  Building. 

SOCIALIST. — Have  you  no  organization  for  the  express  purpose  of  push- 
ing social  reform? 

CATHOLIC. — I  will  mention  the  principal  ones:  The  Catholic  Federation 
and  its  most  prominent  unit,  the  Central  Verein,  which  have  adopted  Social 
Reform  as  their  main  activity  and  which,  so  we  Catholics  hope,  will  be  in- 
strumental in  bringing  about  the  realization  of  our  plans.  It  is  understood 
that  whenever  prudence  suggests  they  will  co-operate  with  other  agencies 
pursuing  similar  purposes,  with  such  agencies  as  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  the  American  Association  for  Labor  Legislation,  the  National 
Consumers'  League,  charity  organizations,  etc. 

SOCIALIST. — It  is  needless  for  me  to  state  that  your  outline  of  Catholic 
plans  and  activities  has  been  a  complete  revelation  to  me.  I  was  under  the 
impression  that  your  co-religionists,  priests  and  laity,  knew  little  else  than 
denounce  Socialism  and  pronounce  a  few  pious  platitudes.  It  is  necessary 
to  expose  the  fallacies  of  Socialism,  its  immoral  and  anti-religious  tendencies, 
but,  if  we  wish  to  check  the  further  spread  of  irreligion,  revolt  and  anarchy, 
it  is  even  more  necessary  to  adopt  and  push  with  vigor  and  consistency  a 
definite  program  of  Social  Reform.  And  for  this  work  no  agency  is  better 
equipped  than  the  Catholic  Church,  with  its  sound,  sublime  principles,  its 
centuries  of  experience  and  its  incomparable  organization  extending  to  every 
section  of  every  city  and  to  every  hamlet  of  every  state  in  the  Union.  Let 
every  Catholic  give  one-tenth  the  interest,  enthusiasm  and  support  to  Social 
Reform  that  the  typical  Comrade  gives  to  Socialism,  and  the  solution  of  the 
Social  Problem  will  be  a  mere  matter  of  time. 


i 


I 


1 


